Oral
Answers to
Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Clinical Leadership

Lucy Allan: What plans he has made to improve the quality of clinical leadership in the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: As we wish each other a merry Christmas, the whole House will also this morning remember the people of Berlin as they face up to yesterday’s horrific suspected terrorist attack. Germany and its capital Berlin have been beacons of freedom and tolerance in modern times, and all our thoughts and prayers are with them today.
Evidence from all over the world suggests that higher standards of care for patients relate directly to the quality of clinical leadership, which was why last month I announced a number of measures to increase the number of doctors and nurses in leadership roles in the NHS.

Lucy Allan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Clinicians in Telford have been showing real leadership by rejecting a proposal to close a brand new women and children’s unit, and elements of our emergency services. The quango responsible for this idea has spent £3 million and taken three years to come up with the proposal, which has been rejected by local people and clinicians. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and my local colleagues to bring an end to this farce, and to ensure that we do not continue in limbo any longer?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise the extent of my hon. Friend’s campaigning on this issue in Telford, and that she expresses the concerns of many of her constituents. As she knows, service changes must be driven locally and must have the support of local GP commissioners. She will also know that the actual situation, very frustratingly, has not led to consensus between clinicians in different parts of Telford and Shropshire. I agree that the process has taken much too long, and I am more than happy to meet her and to try to bring this situation to a close as quickly as possible.

Heidi Alexander: In a year when the Health Secretary has spent quite a lot of time knocking clinicians, it is good to hear him speak so positively about them. After four years in the job, what responsibility does he accept for the lack of suitably qualified individuals—not just clinicians—who are prepared to take on the top jobs in the NHS on a permanent basis?

Jeremy Hunt: I will tell the hon. Lady what I take responsibility for: more doctors, more nurses and more funding than ever before in the history of the NHS. We know that the highest standards are often achieved when there is strong clinical leadership. Only 54% of managers in this country are clinicians, compared with 74% in Canada and 94% in Sweden. That is why it is right that we do everything we can to encourage more clinicians into leadership roles.

Andrew Selous: Does the Secretary of State agree that the clinical leadership involved in the Getting It Right First Time initiative is important, not only because it will save £1.5 billion, which could be put back into patient care, but because patients will be in less pain and will end up having fewer revision operations, and some will even survive treatment that they would not otherwise have survived?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank him for bringing Professor Tim Briggs to see me to explain just how superb this programme is. Infection rates for orthopaedic surgery vary between one in 20 patients in some trusts to one in 500 in others. Getting this right can transform care for patients and save money at the same time.

Ben Bradshaw: I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments about Berlin, my one-time home.
Does the Secretary of State accept that we have the best clinical leaders anywhere in the world? The challenge facing the NHS is not one of clinical leadership, or the dedication or skill of staff, but one of chronic underfunding by this Conservative Government.

Jeremy Hunt: We do indeed have superb clinical leaders, such as Marianne Griffiths at Worthing, which was recently given an outstanding rating. We also have superb non-clinical leaders, such as David Dalton at Salford Royal. I would gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he is worried about funding, why did he stand in the election on a platform that would have seen the NHS have £1.3 billion less this year?

Steven Baker: Will the Secretary of State ensure that clinical leaders are able to apply important techniques from other disciplines, such as lean production, which can drive up productivity?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clinical leadership is important, but so is openness to the  skills of other industries—particularly engineering  skills, with which he is very familiar—that can help us to get processes right so that we improve care and safety for patients.

Rosie Winterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the board of Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust agrees to establish a teaching hospital today, that will enable the trust to train its doctors of tomorrow so that they are more able to move into clinical leadership roles as quickly as possible?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question and welcome Doncaster hospital’s aspirations and ambitions. Any final decision will obviously be a matter for the NHS and Health Education England, but it is very encouraging that it is reaching for the stars in this way. Yes, we do need to train more doctors, and I hope that the hospital can make a good contribution.

John Bercow: The constituency of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was just mentioned and he came in on cue. Unfortunately, he was not within the curtilage of the Chamber at the material time. No doubt we will hear from him at a later date, to which we look forward with eager anticipation.

Evidence-based Medicine

David Tredinnick: What his Department’s definition is of evidence-based medicine; and if he will make a statement.

Nicola Blackwood: Evidence-based medicine is about using high-quality research to guide clinical practice and to achieve optimal results for all patients. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence plays an important role in supporting evidence-based medicine by translating research into authoritative guidance for healthcare professionals on best practice.

David Tredinnick: Is the Minister aware that the author of “Evidence-based Medicine” in 1992, Professor David Sackett, said that it is
“about integrating individual clinical experience and the best external evidence, not just internal evidence”?
Is she further aware that in respect of the interpretation of evidence-based medicine, I have reported the so-called Good Thinking Society to the Charity Commission for the abuse of its charitable status through its use of legal threats to force the Department and health providers to change the law on healthcare?

Nicola Blackwood: NICE obviously considers complementary and alternative medicines when developing its guidance, where there is evidence, and it has been able to recommend some therapies, such as acupuncture for tension headaches and a range of complementary medicines for multiple sclerosis. We expect healthcare professionals to take that guidance into account when designing local services, but they must use their best understanding when treating the individual patients in front of them.

Keith Vaz: The evidence is very clear that eating more sugar increases the risk of diabetes. Apart from introducing the sugar tax, what further evidence-based research can be used by the Government to reduce the risk of diabetes?

Nicola Blackwood: The right hon. Gentleman is a great proponent of tackling the risk of diabetes. He knows that the Government take tackling and preventing diabetes extremely seriously. That is why we have introduced the world’s first national diabetes prevention programme, which we have piloted and are rolling out across the country. It includes not only education programmes but testing, and we are making sure that we use the evidence from the programme to bring about improvement and that we are rolling it out effectively.

Barry Sheerman: We are all in favour of evidence-based medicine. We are also in favour of decent resources for the national health service but, in the case of Huddersfield and Calderdale hospitals, what we want is good, high-quality management, rather than GPs being promoted to a managerial position that they cannot handle.

John Bercow: In relation to evidence-based medicine.

Nicola Blackwood: The hon. Gentleman is a great advocate of evidence-based medicine and I am pleased to hear about his support for it. He will be pleased that the national leadership programme is one of the evidence-based programmes that we are rolling out to improve the leadership of the NHS across the country.

Antimicrobial Resistance

Kevin Hollinrake: How the Government plan to show global leadership in tackling antimicrobial resistance.

Theresa Villiers: How the Government plan to show global leadership in tackling antimicrobial resistance.

Chris Green: How the Government plan to show global leadership in tackling antimicrobial resistance.

Nicola Blackwood: The UK is already a global leader in the fight against AMR. This Government’s leadership has secured a UN declaration on AMR and a commitment from the G20 to drive the development of new antimicrobials. We will continue to deliver international programmes to tackle AMR, including the Fleming fund and the Global AMR innovation fund, which represent more than £300 million of investment over the next five years.

Kevin Hollinrake: One of the 10 key recommendations of the O’Neill review was to improve the data and surveillance underlying antimicrobial resistance. What plans does the Minister have to routinely test all NHS patients for antibiotic resistance?

Nicola Blackwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is essential that we improve diagnostics if we are to tackle this national threat. A routine part of the clinical management of patients showing symptoms of infections is to take a blood sample. When an infection is identified, those samples are indeed tested for resistance. Part of our AMR strategy is to improve diagnostics and to fund innovation in this area.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Government commit themselves to ensuring that their strategy will include discouraging the use of intensive farming, given its overuse of antibiotics which contributes to antimicrobial-resistant problems?

Nicola Blackwood: I agree that we must focus on that as well, but we are currently focusing on reducing the need for antibiotics by minimising disease risk in animals through good animal husbandry and on-farm biosecurity. At present, antibiotics provide the only effective means of treatment for a number of animal diseases, and are therefore essential to ensuring the health and welfare of animals. However, we are also working on the matter in an international context with the World Organisation for Animal Health, and we will continue to drive forward the agenda.

Chris Green: What measures are the Government introducing to support the uptake of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing throughout the United Kingdom, given that it is a proven and cost-effective means of reducing levels of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care?

Nicola Blackwood: As my hon. Friend says, we must focus on innovation and better diagnostic tests, particularly bedside tests. The Government are actively reviewing evidence of the benefits of CRP tests. Pilot studies in the United Kingdom are contributing to that, and will be evaluated so that we can see how best to build on what can be shown to be working well.

Jim Shannon: Given that 480,000 people develop multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis each year and that drug resistance is starting to complicate the fight against HIV and malaria, what steps has the Secretary of State taken to increase awareness in GP surgeries and to provide alternative treatments that can be equally effective, and what co-operation has taken place with devolved Assemblies?

Nicola Blackwood: I am grateful for that immediate promotion from the hon. Gentleman.
We have made considerable progress in establishing the building blocks of our domestic AMR strategy, including better data, guidance for primary care, and a strengthening of the framework for antimicrobial stewardship, which involves introducing incentives for the NHS to improve the prescribing of antibiotics. That has led, in the last quarter, to the first reduction in such prescribing, which I think we can take as an encouraging sign.

Thangam Debbonaire: One of the 10 recommendations of the O’Neill review on antimicrobial resistance was for a massive global public awareness campaign. Given that 700,000 people die each year as a result of AMR, and given the review’s estimate that that figure will rise to 10 million a year by 2050, what assurances can the Minister give that she is behind that awareness campaign?

Nicola Blackwood: The hon. Lady is right to identify the scale of the challenge, which is why we have put AMR on our national risk register, and she is also right to point out that no one country can tackle AMR alone. The United Kingdom has played a global leadership  role. We co-sponsored the World Health Organisation’s 2015 global health plan and created the £265 million Fleming fund so that we could specifically help poor countries to tackle drug resistance, and we will continue to play that global leadership role.

Daniel Zeichner: The O’Neill report was published some six months ago and included recommendations for national Governments. What practical progress have the Government made so far?

Nicola Blackwood: On 19 September we published our comprehensive response to the report, which describes a range of actions that we will take on each of Lord O’Neill’s recommendations. The most practical progress that I can report is the fact that the prescribing of antibiotics has fallen for the first time since records began. I think that we can all be proud of that progress.

Leaving the EU: NHS Workforce

Gavin Newlands: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the UK’s decision to leave the EU on the NHS workforce.

Jeremy Hunt: There are currently 127,000 staff from the EU doing a vital job for patients in the NHS and social care system. In this year of Brexit, we salute their excellent work and remain confident that we will be able to negotiate for them to continue it in the future.

Gavin Newlands: There are more than 50,000 EU nationals working as nurses and doctors throughout the United Kingdom, along with 80,000 in the social care sector. The NHS already faces extensive rota gaps owing to a shortage of senior and junior doctors. Will the Secretary of State join our First Minister in demanding an unequivocal guarantee that EU nationals who are already living here will have the right to remain?

Jeremy Hunt: That is exactly what we intend to achieve through negotiations, but we must remember the British citizens, including people from Scotland, who are living in the EU and whose rights we also wish to protect. That is why the Prime Minister has made a big point of saying that she wishes to negotiate the issue at an early stage in order to give certainty to those people.

Edward Leigh: We are not going to leave the EU for two and a half years, but I want the Secretary of State to grip GP services in Lincolnshire now and to start training more doctors. The Pottergate surgery in Gainsborough is closing, potentially throwing hundreds of people out without a GP, and there is a shortage of 80 GPs against a target of 915 in Lincolnshire, and only six out of 30 training places were taken up recently. Will the Secretary of State now grip the GP services in Lincolnshire for the sake of our people?

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Gentleman has rather cheekily brushed aside the part of the question that does not suit his purposes. Only to focus on half a question is very cheeky; we will allow him to get away with it on this one occasion only.

Jeremy Hunt: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend about this because the reality is that we increased the number of GPs by 5% in the previous Parliament, and in this Parliament we are planning an increase of another 5,000, which will be the biggest increase in GPs in the history of the NHS, and will go along with considerable extra resources.

Helen Goodman: I will focus on the half of the question that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) missed out. The other day I had a meeting with some constituents who told me that they were so pleased that we were leaving the European Union because it meant that the extra £350 million could be used to reopen the A&E department at Bishop Auckland. Has the Secretary of State found that £350 million yet?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady might have noticed that I personally did not talk very much about that £350 million. Whatever resources we have post-Brexit will have to be set in the overall economic context, but of course the great thing is that, post-Brexit, that will be a decision for this Parliament.

Richard Fuller: Many members of the NHS workforce across Bedford and Kempston come from the EU, but many others come from Caribbean countries, the Philippines, India and many countries in Africa. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, in the future, people from those countries are given equal access to work in our NHS as that for EU nationals?

Jeremy Hunt: The benefit of Brexit will be that we can take precisely such decisions in this Parliament, because we will get back control of our borders. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the very important work done by people from outside the EU in the NHS. Because I happened to meet the Philippines ambassador last week, I want to pay credit particularly to the Filipino workers in the NHS and the social care system, who do a fantastic job.

Martyn Day: May I start by extending my party’s sympathies to the victims of the Berlin attack?
Much of what we have heard today is about keeping those who are already here, but BMA Scotland has said that insecurity is stopping EU nationals from taking up posts that really need to be filled. This is an urgent problem, so does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to create some certainty for EU nationals and to avoid a self-made workforce crisis?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why it is extremely frustrating that the current signals from the EU are that it is unwilling to bring forward negotiations about the status of EU nationals here, and indeed that of British nationals in the EU. No one from either side of the Brexit debate has ever said that there will be no immigration post-Brexit; they have simply said that we will control that immigration ourselves through this House and through decisions made by the British people at general elections.

Justin Madders: On behalf of the official Opposition, may I echo the words of the Secretary of State in relation to the tragic events in Berlin and send our condolences to the people there?
The Institute for Employment Studies has today warned that Brexit could make nursing shortages even worse. That follows The Times reporting that
“applications for nursing, midwifery and allied health courses were down by about 20%”
and that in some institutions applications had halved. The decision to scrap nurse bursaries is having the consequences that every expert predicted it would. With the uncertainty of Brexit looming over our workforce, now is not the time to be taking a massive gamble with our nurses so, in light of the evidence, will the Secretary of State now agree to scrap that disastrous policy?

Jeremy Hunt: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of that policy was to allow us to train more nurses; in fact, we will be training 40,000 more nurses during this Parliament. We have more than 11,000 more nurses in our NHS wards, and at Countess of Chester hospital—the hon. Gentleman’s own hospital—there are 172 more nurses than in 2010.

Hospitals in Special Measures

Rehman Chishti: What progress he has made on improving hospitals in special measures.

Philip Dunne: We want the NHS to offer the safest, highest quality care anywhere in the world, so we are now tackling unacceptable performance. That is in contrast to the Labour party, which ignored failures for so long. Since introducing the rigorous special measures inspection regime, 31 provider trusts have gone into Care Quality Commission special measures, of which 15 have been turned around as a result of significant quality improvements. I congratulate again the staff of Sherwood Forest, Wye Valley, Norfolk, and Suffolk trusts, all of which have come out of special measures in recent months.

Rehman Chishti: Medway Maritime Hospital has made significant improvements since it was put into special measures: mortality rates and length of patient stay are down; leadership is excellent; and there has been extensive investment in the A&E. Does the Minister agree that it is the right time for the hospital to come out of special measures? Will he join me in paying tribute to the excellent work of the hospital’s staff?

Philip Dunne: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in championing Medway Maritime Hospital, which I visited earlier this autumn. The CQC is in the process of re-inspecting Medway and will publish its findings in the new year. I congratulate the trust on its improvements thus far that were highlighted by my hon. Friend, which include reducing its average length of stay on admission wards from 11 days to only 3 days.

Liz McInnes: A recent damning report on maternity care from the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust care referred to appalling neglect that lead to the avoidable deaths of mothers and babies. The trust has implemented an improvement plan, but plans for maternity services under the “Making It Better” scheme were based on a predicted birth rate of 3,500 a year, and the reality is that the trust deals with 10,000 deliveries a year. What action will the Minister take to address that situation?

Philip Dunne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising some of the issues at the Pennine trust. We are well aware that it needs improvement, which is why we have buddied it up with the outstanding Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust next door. The Salford trust is led by Sir David Dalton and the Secretary of State referred to it earlier. I will take up the matter raised by the hon. Lady directly with Sir David.

Community Pharmacies

Lyn Brown: What steps his Department is taking to work with community pharmacies to reduce (a) waste and (b) the cost of medicines.

David Mowat: NHS England has a range of initiatives for waste and medicine cost reduction. We estimate that there is a prize of up £150 million a year to be realised across the system on waste. Community pharmacies have a significant role to play in that, partly through their existing duty to review prescriptions when repeat dispensing and partly through the separately commissioned medicine use reviews.

Lyn Brown: The Minister is absolutely right to say that community pharmacies have an important role to play. On 17 October, he told the House:
“We do not believe that any community pharmacies will necessarily close as a result of these cuts.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 597.]
However, the impact assessment published by his Department just two days later described a possible scenario in which 1,000 pharmacies close. Will the Minister confirm that nobody in Britain will have to travel further to get to a chemist as a result of his cuts?

David Mowat: The impact assessment set out an upper range, which we do not believe represents  an accurate reflection of what will happen. The facts of the matter are that we need our community pharmacy network to move towards services and away from dispensing. Paying every community pharmacy in the country, or 91% of them, £25,000 just for having an establishment does not achieve—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) should not chunter from a sedentary position in an attempt to hector the Minister, who should glide seamlessly above the attempted provocation. Minister, continue.

David Mowat: The Minister has finished.

John Bercow: He has finished his answer. Very well; I call Alistair Burt.

Alistair Burt: To ensure not only that unnecessary costs are reduced, but that the best community pharmacy services are provided, will the Minister do all that he can to make sure that clinical commissioning groups engage as effectively as possible with pharmacies? Preferably, that would be by getting more people on CCG boards to ensure that the crucial connection between the provision of health services and pharmacy is absolutely at the heart of what we do.

David Mowat: My right hon. Friend is right; CCGs are variable in the extent to which they commission pharmacy services. However, we have set out the minor ailments scheme, it will be rolled out nationally by April 2018 and we expect every CCG to take a part in it.

Kevin Barron: As chair of the all-party group on pharmacy, I have seen many examples of drugs that have been prescribed and not used, as I am sure we all have. Should we not renegotiate the national contract, which currently pays community pharmacies more than 90% of their income through prescribing? Surely we can do things differently.

David Mowat: The right hon. Gentleman rightly  says that we must change the contract to move away from 90% of the income coming from dispensing. Far more must come from services, which are separately commissioned by CCGs and others. The Murray review, which he will be aware of from his work on the all-party group, sets out a road map for that, and NHS England is determined to implement it.

Stewart Jackson: May I pay tribute to the excellent work of pharmacies in my constituency? Last night, “Look East” demonstrated the pressure that urgent care centres in the east are under because of extra patient footfall. Will the Minister give me an undertaking that he will put in place guidelines to CCGs to encourage them to work much more closely with pharmacies to reduce that footfall?

David Mowat: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he is right to say that we must move the community pharmacy network away from just dispensing and into services, which will include minor ailments and repeat prescriptions. I will be encouraging CCGs to do that.

Martyn Day: Community pharmacies, which were developed in Scotland 10 years ago, are there for minor ailment, chronic medication and public health services. Although the Minister has expressed admiration for the Scottish system, does he not recognise the need to work with the pharmacy profession to develop the full potential within community services?

David Mowat: I have mentioned on previous occasions that Scotland has, in some respects, gone further and faster than we have in England so far on community pharmacies. The £300 million that we have set aside in the integration fund for the rest of this Parliament is going to be used to do just the things that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, in terms of minor ailments and repeat prescriptions. We are determined to make that happen.

Julie Cooper: Over the festive period, in every town and city in the UK, community pharmacies will be open to dispense emergency prescriptions, and to provide specialist services and professional advice. Does the Minister appreciate that service, which not only helps the public, but takes pressure off other parts of the NHS? Will he join me in thanking community pharmacies and their staff for the work they do? Will he commit to reconsider budget cuts that will lead to a  reduction of this valuable service, and instead meet the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the National Pharmacy Association to discuss extending the role of community pharmacies, to deliver savings for the NHS?

David Mowat: I have met the royal college of pharmacies on a number of occasions, and indeed it has worked with us on the Murray review, which is an essential road map that sets out how we are going to move the community pharmacy network away from a remuneration model based just on dispensing and on to services as well. I agree with the hon. Lady that the 11,000 community pharmacies across the country all provide excellent services, and we expect that to continue.

NHS Services: Winter

Conor McGinn: What plans his Department has to help the NHS deal with pressures on services in winter 2016-17.

Jeremy Hunt: Last year, the number of excess winter deaths was 45% lower than in the previous year, and contingency planning for this winter is well under way, with £400 million allocated to local health systems for winter preparedness.

Conor McGinn: This time last year, St Helens CCG told me it needed to postpone elective operations and referrals in order to get through winter. Six months later, it was £12.5 million in deficit and proposing to cancel all non-urgent surgery indefinitely. What the Health Secretary is proposing does not make the problems go away—it stores them up. When will the Government give local trusts and clinicians the funding they require? Stop passing the buck and start passing the bucks!

Jeremy Hunt: With the greatest respect, I do not think it is passing the buck to put £1.3 billion more into the NHS this year than the hon. Gentleman was proposing at the last election. A lot of actions are being taken in Cheshire and Merseyside; a local accident and emergency delivery board was set up, which is doing very important work, and the emergency care improvement programme is working very well at his local trust.

Jeremy Lefroy: There is great pressure on emergency services throughout Staffordshire at the moment. There would be even more without the accident and emergency centres in Stafford and Burton, yet the sustainability and transformation plan proposes to reduce one of them, so there will only be two left in the county. Will the Secretary of State speak to the authors of the STP to make it clear that this is totally unacceptable given the current situation?

Jeremy Hunt: No one fights harder and more eloquently than my hon. Friend for the needs of the people of Stafford. I always look with concern at proposals to change emergency services given the huge pressures that exist, so I shall happily look at the plan as he suggests.

Derek Twigg: The problem is not just winter pressures but pressures all year round. The Secretary of State will no doubt tell me that the Government have now allowed councils to increase the precept to allow councils to fund it better, but the fact is  that that is not enough money. There is no strategy. Does anyone outside the Department—those in the Department might not either—believe that the Government has a strategy for social care?

Jeremy Hunt: All I would do is urge the hon. Gentleman to listen to what the Prime Minister said at this Dispatch Box last week. She said that we recognise the short-term pressures—indeed, the Communities Secretary came up with a package of £900 million extra over the next couple of years—but that we also need a long-term sustainable solution, on which the Government are working hard.

Simon Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the pressures of winter that needs improving is inappropriate admissions to A&E? Does he accept that the proposals by the Essex success regime to ensure that the three hospitals concerned will retain their A&E departments but that there will be a specialist centre for cardiothoracic care and for burns and plastic surgery care are the right way forward to improve and enhance the care for those suffering from accidents and emergencies?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend understands these matters extremely well from his time as a very distinguished Health Minister. He is absolutely right; the truth is that we want widespread availability of A&Es but we do not serve patients best by offering identical services everywhere. That is why in the past three or four years one of the things we are most proud of is the setting up of a national network of 26 trauma centres, which has had a dramatic impact on mortality rates for the most serious cases.

John Bercow: I have just been advised by a very sagacious source that in supplementary questions and answers to this question some reference to winter is desirable.

Jon Ashworth: I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about Berlin. I wish everyone in the House a merry Christmas and I extend my best wishes for a very peaceful and joyful Christmas and new year to all NHS staff, especially those working over Christmas. Pressures on the NHS this winter are such and the underfunding is so severe that hospitals have been ordered to close operating theatres for elective surgery over Christmas. Is this what the Secretary of State means by a seven-day NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me wish the shadow Health Secretary a merry Christmas and say that despite his rhetoric I see that Santa has been quite generous to him. His local trust in Leicester has 254 more nurses and 306 more doctors than in 2010. Next year, we will have a new £43 million emergency floor at the Leicester royal infirmary. We need to ensure that there is sufficient bed capacity in our hospitals over winter—that is a very important part of winter planning—but we are also doing 5,000 more elective operations every day than when Labour was in office.

Jon Ashworth: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has done his research on Leicester, but is closing operating theatres for a month this Christmas  not, in reality, a short-term fix? The truth is that when the pause ends and hospitals fill up again above the 85% occupancy recommendations, patients will be left with a simple choice: get stuck on a waiting list while hospitals try to reduce occupancy rates to safe levels, or risk going into a hospital when it is at full capacity and potentially unsafe and be exposed to higher infection risks. Which option would the Secretary of State choose?

Jeremy Hunt: May I gently urge the hon. Gentleman to be careful with his rhetoric? We are not closing operating theatres for a month over Christmas. We need to be very careful what we say in this place, because people outside are listening. The answer is to ensure that we increase capacity in the NHS, and that is why we have 11,000 more doctors and 11,000 more hospital nurses than we had six years ago. We are training 15,000 more doctors every year from 2018-19 to ensure that we can avoid these problems in the future.

NHS: Financial Recovery

Andrew Bridgen: What progress the Government are making on recovering money from overseas visitors and other chargeable NHS patients.

Philip Dunne: The NHS is a national, not an international, service. This Government were the first to introduce tough measures to clamp down on visitors accessing free NHS care, including introducing the immigration health surcharge. The steps we have taken have meant that income raised from visitors and migrants has risen three-fold in three years, from £97 million in 2013-14 to £289 million in 2015-16.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that recovering more money from chargeable patients requires a culture change among NHS staff? Does he therefore share my dismay that the leader of the doctors union dismisses the need even to address this issue, while calling for additional investment in our NHS?

Philip Dunne: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need increased awareness and appropriate participation by all NHS staff in achieving this policy, but I also agree with one thing that Dr Mark Porter said—that sick and vulnerable patients must not be put off seeking necessary treatment, as this may be bad for their health and for that of the public in general. This has always been a clear feature of our policy, so to be clear, this policy does not withhold immediately necessary or urgent treatment, but it makes sure that the NHS is fairly reimbursed by those who are not entitled to free care.

Meg Hillier: As the Minister will know, the Public Accounts Committee has looked in detail at this issue, and we were rather shocked to discover that the Government themselves are woeful at collecting money from EU citizens who use our hospitals and for whom the Government are then responsible for getting the money from their home Government. When will the Government get their act together to make sure that this money comes into our NHS?

Philip Dunne: I am always grateful for advice from the Public Accounts Committee, which looks into areas where the Government can recover moneys to which they are entitled. There was an article in today’s Times which referred to outstanding sums, and we are taking steps to try to increase recovery rates in the years ahead.

Sustainability and Transformation Plan: South-west London

Tom Brake: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the implementation of the sustainability and transformation plan for south-west London on the provision of health services in that area.

Philip Dunne: The sustainability and transformation plan for south-west London sets out how the area will implement the NHS’s five year forward view. The local NHS is looking to strengthen primary care and ensure closer working across NHS bodies, with more sustainable acute services, developing centres of expertise to ensure high-quality service, as well as closer co-ordination with social care providers.

Tom Brake: The Epsom and St Helier Trust is a high-performing trust, hitting A&E and cancer treatment referral targets. It is confident that it can deliver sustainable and transformed care services, but will struggle to do so in St Helier hospital, built in the 1930s. The trust has previously secured a commitment from two Governments that funding would be available. Will the Minister give the same undertaking and confirm that once the STP process is complete, funding will be available to the trust to enable it to continue delivering excellent sustainable services from a new hospital?

Philip Dunne: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s campaign on this matter. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the work that is being done in reviewing both the STP process and the policy priorities of NHS England. Once those plans have been put forward to Ministers, we will be able to consider which we can prioritise.

Tania Mathias: The STP for south-west London includes mental health crisis needs, but there is a current crisis of lack of in-patient facilities for mental health patients. Will the Minister look into extra immediate funding to increase the number of in-patient mental health beds?

Philip Dunne: As my hon. Friend is well aware, given her experience in this area, mental health is a priority of the Government and of the STP process. I will take away what she says in relation to in-patient beds.

Capita

Margaret Greenwood: If the Government will make a recommendation to NHS England not to renew its primary care support contract with Capita.

Nicola Blackwood: It is too early to speculate on the renewal of this contract, but it will ultimately be for  NHS England to determine the selection criteria for the future procurement of services provided by it. My focus right now is on raising the quality of the existing contract, and I have been clear that the standard of Capita’s work under the contract has not been acceptable and it must improve. I continue to meet regularly with Capita and NHS England as they work to improve the performance of the service.

Margaret Greenwood: I thank the Minister for that response. Several GP practices in my constituency have reported serious delays in the transfer of medical records. In some cases the records have gone missing altogether, with serious implications for patient safety. I would like a clear response from the Minister about the assurances she can give to my constituents that the Government—not just NHS England, but the Government—take seriously the safe delivery of their confidential medical records.

Nicola Blackwood: I take this issue extremely seriously, which is why I am personally meeting NHS England and Capita fortnightly and ensuring that detailed rectification plans are in place for each service delivery programme. The improvements should happen between January and April next year. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Lady in more detail if she would like to be able to reassure her GPs, optometrists and dentists on those issues.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. This question is about England, rather than Scotland or Wales.

Kate Green: Will the Minister advise GP practices in my constituency, who have been massively inconvenienced by the chaos of the Capita contract, that full compensation will be available for the inconvenience they have been put through?

Nicola Blackwood: At the moment, NHS England and Capita are focusing very hard on improving service delivery, which I think must be the top priority, but we are also looking into exactly what inconvenience and costs GPs have suffered, along with dentists and optometrists, and that will be considered and discussed with GPs.

Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust: Delayed Discharges

Rob Marris: How many patient days of delayed discharge attributable to the levels of suitable social care available at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust there were in (a) 2010 and (b) 2016.

David Mowat: Directly comparable figures are not available, but it is clear that in the past two years there has been a substantial increase in delayed discharge figures attributable to social care at the trust, which this year were among the worst currently being recorded across the NHS.

Rob Marris: Sadly, those figures are no surprise, despite the well-managed New Cross hospital, because central Government have cut Wolverhampton City  Council’s total income by almost 50% in the past six years. The primary care vertical integration pilot in Wolverhampton is a redesign of services so that a single organisation—the hospital trust—deals with patients from initial contact to ongoing management and end-of-life care. What steps is the Department of Health taking to support vertical integration as one potential way to improve care and lessen hospital admissions and delayed discharges?

David Mowat: The hon. Gentleman is right that budgets are part of the issue, which is why last week’s announcement about increased funding is important. However, funding alone does not explain the delayed transfers in Wolverhampton, which are five times worse than those of Telford, which is just down the road; twice as bad as Sandwell, which is very close; and, indeed, 30 times worse than the best performing councils, such as Newcastle, Knowsley and St Helens. With regard to his specific point about the vertically integrated pilot, this is a very exciting project and I commend the people of Wolverhampton for doing it. It is based on a model from Spain that has produced big results. We are watching it carefully and will support it as required.

Unhealthy Food

Natalie McGarry: What assessment he has made of the potential effectiveness of introducing (a) a ban on price-cutting promotions on unhealthy food in supermarkets and (b) restrictions on advertising of unhealthy food during family television programmes in reducing childhood obesity.

Nicola Blackwood: In developing the childhood obesity plan, we considered the latest research and evidence on promotions and advertising, including Public Health England’s evidence package “Sugar reduction: the evidence for action”. We have made no secret of the fact that we considered a range of policies before finally settling on those set out in the childhood obesity plan. The plan includes the soft drinks industry levy and taking 20% of sugar out of certain products. We concluded that our plan is the right approach to secure the future health of our children.

Natalie McGarry: I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s words of sympathy for the people of Berlin, and I also add my thoughts for the people of Aleppo, Yemen, Gaza, Mosul and all the forgotten conflicts of the world.
Public health experts have dismissed the Government’s obesity strategy as a weak approach and a wasted opportunity. The Government say that they are committed to evidence-based policy making, but they have failed to acknowledge that relying on voluntary food action without tackling cost and availability is inherently flawed. Will the Minister commit the Government to getting a grip and bringing forward a ban or restrictions on advertising and price-cutting promotions on junk food?

Nicola Blackwood: I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady that current restrictions on advertising in the UK are already among the toughest in the world. For example, there is a total ban on the advertising of less healthy food during children’s television programmes. Those  have been shown to be very effective. However, we also welcome action that has been taken by forward-thinking retailers on promotions elsewhere. In particular, Sainsbury’s has committed to removing multi-buy promotions across its full range of branded and own-brand soft drinks, confectionery, biscuits and crisps, removing more than 50% of its multi-buy promotions from its grocery business while lowering regular prices for products. It should be congratulated on leading the way.

John Bercow: We now feel considerably better informed.

Alan Mak: Advertising agencies and industry bodies can play a key role in ensuring that adverts are appropriate. Will the Minister continue working with the industry to tackle child obesity?

Nicola Blackwood: Yes.

Margaret Ferrier: Certain supermarkets persist in placing less healthy foods on promotion near the entrances to their stores, where they are unavoidable. Does the Minister agree that it is not just at checkouts that healthy options should be promoted, and that retailers should exercise more responsibility?

Nicola Blackwood: I absolutely agree that putting healthier options near checkouts and helping people to make healthier choices are part of retailers’ responsibilities. What has been notable in my discussions with retailers is that the penny is starting to drop that this is the direction of travel and what the public want, and I think we are going to start seeing a real sea change in the way retailers are advertising.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Let us hear the sound of Shipley— Mr Philip Davies.

Philip Davies: May I urge the Minister not to go down this ridiculous nanny-state route—which one would not expect from a Conservative Government—of setting up an unhealthy food police to go round telling people what they should be eating and what they should not be eating? No food eaten as part of a balanced diet is in itself particularly unhealthy. If the Government are so concerned about families that are just about managing, why on earth would they even contemplate increasing costs for working families?

Nicola Blackwood: My hon. Friend flatters me by saying he thinks I am a nanny—it is really quite a disturbing thought. However, what we have here is an obesity plan that balances the need to cut the sugar in young people’s diets, as a way to make sure they get a healthy diet, and individual choice, which we know is absolutely a Conservative ideal.

Topical Questions

Chris Green: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: As we enter the challenging winter period, I want, on behalf of the whole country, to thank the 2.7 million people working in the health and care system—particularly those giving up all or part of their own Christmas day  to look after patients. We are in their debt, and we wish them a merry Christmas, whenever they get the chance to celebrate it with their families.

Chris Green: Bolton A&E is employing new measures to cope with the staggering demand on its service. What are the Government doing to educate people that A&E is for serious and life-threatening conditions only, so that staff and resources can go where they are needed most?

Jeremy Hunt: That is an excellent question. We are doing a number of things. First, we have the Stay Well this Winter campaign, which has a lot of advice to go out to his constituents and all our constituents about how to avoid things that can lead to their having to go to A&E. However, we also urge the public to remember that accident and emergency departments are for precisely that.

Barbara Keeley: There was no new money from the Government for social care in the local government settlement—just a recycling of money from the new homes bonus to social care, and that is for 2017-18 only. Fifty-seven councils will actually lose funding owing to this recycling. Salford, which was recently praised by the Prime Minister for its integration of social care, will lose £2.3 million due to this inept settlement. Is it not time for the Secretary of State to accept that social care is in crisis and that his Government cannot just dump the issue of funding it on councils and council tax payers?

Jeremy Hunt: I do listen carefully to what the hon. Lady says, because she has campaigned long and hard for social care. However, with respect, I would say to her that she is ignoring one simple fact: there is more money going into social care now than would have been the case if we had followed her advice at the last election. What the Communities Secretary announced was £900 million of additional help over the next two years.

Barbara Keeley: The Government’s plans for funding social care look inept because they have tied care funding, which is related to need, to council tax and to deductions from the new homes bonus. Last week’s settlement was a pathetic attempt to deal with a funding gap of £2 billion for social care by recycling £240 million within budgets. The chief executive of the British Red Cross has described the social care crisis as
“a humanitarian crisis that needs urgent action.”
When is the Secretary of State going to take that crisis seriously?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady talks about council tax, but she does not call out Labour councils like Hillingdon, Hounslow, Merton and Stoke which complain about pressures in the social care system and then refuse to introduce the social care precept that could make a difference to their residents. We are taking the situation seriously. More was done this week and more will be done in future.

Oliver Colvile: 

David Mowat: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and commend him for his work as a pharmacy champion. The Murray review was indeed published last week, and NHS England will respond to it in detail early in the new year. It is a very important document because it sets out in some detail how we intend to transform the community pharmacy network into a service-based profession along the lines that my hon. Friend likes.

Seema Malhotra: 

Philip Dunne: I am aware of the case that the hon. Lady refers to. In the week of the incident, the London ambulance service received 40,433 emergency calls—an 8% increase on the previous week. We are trying to do something about this. We have recruited 2,200 more paramedics since 2010 and increased the number of paramedic training places by 60% in this year alone. The London ambulance service has recruited 107 more paramedics since September 2015 to help with this increased demand.

Fiona Bruce: Has the public health Minister had an opportunity to consider the recent report sent to her by the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm on the shocking impact of excessive drinking by members of the public on the dedicated people who work in our emergency services? Will she meet the APPG to discuss this?

Nicola Blackwood: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her dogged campaigning on this issue, on which she is a true champion. I have not had a chance to read the report in detail, but I have seen a number of its recommendations and we are taking action on some of them, including the publication of the chief medical officer’s low risk guidelines and Public Health England’s One You campaign, which runs over Christmas and the new year. We are embedding alcohol measures into the NHS health check and we have introduced a national CQUIN—Commissioning for Quality and Innovation—because evidence shows that intervention by a health professional is the most effective way of disrupting problem drinking.

John Mann: 

Jeremy Hunt: First, I absolutely commend the hon. Gentleman for standing with his constituents and championing individual cases. I will happily look into the proposed changes and how they will affect people like Zac. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when we make these changes it is to improve the services of people and his constituents; that is why we are making them.

John Bercow: Alex Chalk. Where is the fella?

Adam Afriyie: Despite some of the obvious challenges in the healthcare service, this is a wonderful time of year when hundreds of thousands of people choose to quit smoking by putting down their cancer stick and picking up an electronic vaping device. Does the Minister share my concern, however, that we must be very cautious in any implementation of the EU tobacco products directive so that it does not act as a barrier to people quitting smoking and taking up vaping?

Nicola Blackwood: The Government are very clear that vaping is significantly less harmful than continuing to smoke. Under the current regulatory regime, huge numbers of smokers are successfully using these innovative products as an effective quitting tool. We have already committed to reviewing the TPD and we will fully explore the opportunities that Brexit may provide, but until exit negotiations are concluded we remain a full member of the EU.

David Hanson: On contaminated blood, will the Government confirm that they still plan to use a private profit-making company such as Atos to administer the scheme, and if so, why?

Nicola Blackwood: I absolutely cannot confirm that. The tendering process has not even begun. Therefore, we are not considering any form of company, private or otherwise.

Sarah Wollaston: The Health Committee has just published its interim report on preventing suicide. I thank all those who gave evidence to our inquiry and all members of the Department of Health advisory group. We support the strategy, but the clear message that we heard was that implementation needs to be strengthened. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss our report’s recommendations, and will he join me in thanking members of the Samaritans and other voluntary groups around the country who will be working tirelessly over Christmas, as they do every day, to support those in crisis?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks wisely. Christmas can be a very lonely time for a number of people, so we all commend the work of voluntary organisations that do so well. I would be delighted to meet her.

Fiona Mactaggart: More than a third of my male constituents live until they are over 80, and yet next door in Windsor and Maidenhead the same is true of well over half of the residents. In the 10 years before 2010, that gap narrowed. What is the Secretary of State doing to narrow the gap in future?

Jeremy Hunt: The best thing we can do to narrow the gap is make sure that we continue to invest properly in the NHS and social care system, and make good progress on public health, which often has the biggest effect on health inequalities. That is why it is good news that we have record low smoking rates.

Andrew Murrison: With acute hospital bed blocking at a record high, do Ministers agree that it is a great pity that so very few of the 40 sustainability and transformation plans now in the public domain deal directly with step-down care and, in particular, with community hospitals?

Philip Dunne: As my hon. Friend has confirmed, 44 areas are working on their STPs, all of which are charged with looking at improving integration between hospitals and social care in order to improve discharge. In order for STPs to be taken forward, they have to address that issue.

Kerry McCarthy: Recent figures from the Royal College of Psychiatrists show that children and adolescent mental health services are still underfunded in many parts of the country—particularly worrying for me is the fact that Bristol seems to be the 13th lowest in the country. What are Ministers doing to ensure that children across England and the rest of the UK get the health services that they need?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is right to highlight this issue and I agree with her. I am not happy with the service that we provide through CAHMS at the moment. It is a big area of focus for the Government. We are putting a lot of investment in, but there is lots more to be done.

Maria Miller: My constituency has been waiting some time for the go-ahead for a new critical treatment hospital providing 24/7 care for the sickest patients, which is very much in line with Government policy. The hospital’s chief executive, Mary Edwards, retires this month after 21 years of exceptional service. Will the Secretary of State give her a retirement present and help me to secure a decision from NHS England?

Philip Dunne: I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating her chief executive on her commitment to the NHS. As I said in answer to a previous question about the STP for my right hon. Friend’s area, the issue is being reviewed at the moment by NHS England, and I am afraid that I am not in a position to give her any advance notice of the outcome.

Norman Lamb: The Secretary of State will be aware of the horrifying case of Fiona Hollings, a 19-year-old with anorexia who for the past four months has been nearly 400 miles away from home, in a bed in Glasgow. Her family have travelled 8,000 miles in that time to see her. The Government commit to ending this horrific practice by 2020, but do families really have to put up with it until then? How would he feel if it was his child?

Jeremy Hunt: We are taking action and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what has happened in that case is completely unacceptable. We are currently  commissioning a record number of in-patient mental health beds, and it is a very big priority for us to eliminate the problem entirely by the end of the Parliament.

Mark Pawsey: My constituent Marie Bingham administers a drug at home using pre-filled syringes, but she is unable to dispose of the used needles, partly because they are in 2.5 litre sharps tubs rather than 1 litre sharps tubs. It is a ludicrous situation. Is the Minister aware of the problem, and are there any steps he can take to deal with it?

David Mowat: As my hon. Friend says, pharmacies are commissioned, on such occasions, to dispose of these needles. I was not aware of the particular issue about the 2.5 litre tubs that seems to exist in Rugby. I will investigate that and revert to him.

Rupa Huq: TB rates are currently higher in bits of Ealing than in Rwanda. Could the Government better the bilateral innovation fund to which they have committed with China and go for the O’Neill report recommendation to work towards a truly global fund, in conjunction with other nations, to fight antimicrobial resistance?

Nicola Blackwood: As I have already answered, we are a world leader on AMR. We have not only the bilateral fund with China but the £265 million Fleming fund, through which we will deliver bilateral national action plans with a number of developing nations. We are committed to going further than that through the global action plan with the UN.

Tom Pursglove: A fortnight ago, I visited the pharmacy at the Corby urgent care centre to thank the dedicated staff for all that they do all year round, and to have a flu jab as part of the ongoing campaign. Does the Minister agree that exactly that sort of proactive working is crucial in trying to tackle winter pressures?

David Mowat: I do agree with my hon. Friend. I am particularly pleased that this year, the pharmacy network has done more flu jabs so far than in the entire period last year. I had my flu jab, and it is holding up well.

John Bercow: It is always useful to have a bit of additional information. We are greatly indebted to the Minister.

Lilian Greenwood: In the east midlands, the average ambulance arrival time for life-threatening cases has almost doubled in the last three years, and Nottingham’s A&E waiting times are the worst in a decade. Will Ministers apologise to my constituents, including hard-working NHS staff, for their failure to fund health and social care adequately?

Philip Dunne: I would like to add my tribute to the work of ambulance staff up and down the country, particularly over the busy Christmas period ahead. As I have already said today, we have increased funding for ambulance services. We have increased the number of paramedics, both in training and employed. Earlier this month we   announced that we had increased the payments to paramedics to move them from band 5 to band 6, to help to retain and recruit more staff.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. We are short of time, but I am in a generous mood. We can manage only one more, so 46 years, six months and two days after his first election to the House, I call Mr Dennis Skinner.

Dennis Skinner: He is a mine of information, isn’t he? He would like to contribute, really.
Does the Secretary of State not think that it is a scandal to be shutting Bolsover hospital, with 16 valuable  beds that will go for ever, at a time when people are lined up on trolleys in nearly every hospital in Britain? Why does the Secretary of State not give Bolsover a Christmas present and announce that Bolsover hospital will be saved? Come on!

Jeremy Hunt: I add my congratulations to those of the Speaker on the hon. Gentleman’s long service, which has included campaigning for Bolsover hospital. I simply say to him that we will look very carefully at all proposals to change the services offered. I think community hospitals have an important role in the future of the NHS, but the services they provide will change as more people want to be treated at home.

John Bercow: Thank you.

SKY: 21ST CENTURY FOX TAKEOVER BID

Ed Miliband: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to make a statement on the timetable of, and the approach of the Government to, 21st Century Fox’s bid to take over Sky now that the bid has been agreed, and whether the Government plan to refer the bid to the competition authorities.

Karen Bradley: As hon. and right hon. Members know, Sky plc announced on Friday 9 December that it had received an approach from 21st Century Fox Inc. to acquire the 61% of shares in Sky plc that it does not already own. The Minister for Digital and Culture, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), made a statement on 12 December about the proposed bid and the process that would need to be followed. I recognise that this is an issue of significant interest to the public and that it has raised a lot of interest in Parliament, as well as being a significant issue for the parties concerned. It is very important I make it clear that the role I will play in this process is a quasi-judicial one. As the Secretary of State, I am able to intervene in certain media mergers on public interest grounds, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. Government guidance on the operation of the public interest merger provisions under the Act gives an indication of how the intervention regime will operate in practice and of the approach I will aim to take. The most important concern for me is that the integrity of the process is upheld. The guidance makes it clear that I will aim to take an initial decision on whether to intervene on public interest grounds within 10 working days of formal notification of the merger to the relevant competition authority.
No such formal notification has yet been made. Unless and until a formal notification is made to the relevant competition authority, I will not be taking any decisions in relation to the bid. It is for the parties formally to notify the relevant competition authorities. It is at that point that I will need to consider whether any of the public interests specified in the legislation merit an intervention. My decision on whether or not to intervene will be a quasi-judicial one, and it is important that I am able to act independently and that the process is scrupulously fair and impartial. Given that, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on this proposed bid at this point if the integrity of the process is to be protected and everyone’s interests are to be treated fairly.
What I can say is that I understand the significant public and parliamentary interest in this matter, and I do not for a minute underestimate it. This is also clearly a significant issue for the parties to the bid. It is therefore crucial that the integrity of the process is protected. I will not be making any further comment on the process or the merits of the bid today, but I can confirm that this matter is being treated with the utmost seriousness and that, should the parties formally notify the bid to the relevant competition authorities, I will act in line with the relevant legislation, the guidance and the quasi-judicial principles.

Ed Miliband: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. The urgency of the House considering this matter today is that we are going into recess until 9 January, and the bid may be notified to the Government at any time.
It is very important that the House understands the reality that in even launching this bid for 100% of Sky, the Murdochs are seeking to turn the judgment of this House, the regulator and indeed the country on its head. In 2011, this House unanimously urged the withdrawal of the bid for Sky by Rupert Murdoch. In 2012, Ofcom published a damning assessment of James Murdoch’s behaviour in the running of News International. That report stopped short of declaring Sky as unfit and improper to hold a licence only on the basis that the Murdochs were a minority—not 100%—owner of Sky, and that James Murdoch was no longer playing an executive role at Sky.
Today James Murdoch is back, as chairman of Sky and chief executive of 21st Century Fox. This bid shows the Murdochs have learned nothing and think they can get away with anything. If it was wrong for the Murdochs to own 100% of Sky in 2011 and 2012, it is wrong today. We have seen the convictions of their senior employees for phone hacking and perverting the course of justice, and of police and public officials for taking payments from News International employees. We are still yet to have part 2 of Leveson, which was supposed—I am quoting its terms of reference—to examine the
“corporate governance and management failures at news International”.
Why? Because this Government are seeking to ditch part 2 of Leveson. We all said across this House in 2011 that never again would we allow the Murdochs to wield unfettered power, yet here we are all over again.
May I ask the Secretary of State: first, has she read the Ofcom report of 2012 into James Murdoch, and will she tell us what she thought of its contents; secondly, will she tell us how this bid can even be considered to be in the realm of reality when part 2 of Leveson, specifically tasked with looking at the failures of News International, has not taken place; and thirdly, will she hear the message loud and clear that if the House were to return on 9 January to find the waving through of this bid, that would be totally and utterly unacceptable and fly in the face of the expressed will of the House and the country? Will she assure us today that this will not happen?
On the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister said she would stand up to the powerful. If ever there was a chance to prove it, it is today.

Karen Bradley: I do not for one second underestimate the huge public and parliamentary interest in this proposed merger, nor the importance of the issue to the parties concerned. But I must ensure, given my quasi-judicial role, that I protect the integrity of the process and ensure that, as and when a formal notification is given—if it is—it is properly considered. I will be making no further comments on the merits of the bid at this stage.

John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, contrary to the assertion of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in The Guardian, Sky’s share of the television news market is actually 5%, not 20%? Although there may well be a case for asking the regulator to look at  this bid, does she recognise that it represents a £12 billion investment into a British company, and is a vote of confidence that Britain will remain a centre of international broadcasting after it leaves the European Union?

Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend has significant interest in this area, having been an exceptionally good predecessor for me, but will, I know, understand the position I am in and that I cannot comment.

Tom Watson: We have seen this bid before. I know that Christmas is a time for TV repeats, but this one was not a hit the first time round and is no more popular now. More than 135,000 people have already signed an online petition calling for the bid to be referred to Ofcom. The reasons for their concern are the same as those that caused the previous bid to be abandoned in 2011. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be outrageous if the bid were pushed through over the Christmas holidays when Parliament is not sitting? Is she not even slightly embarrassed that on the one hand she is currently consulting to shelve part 2 of the Leveson inquiry, which would look at unlawful or improper conduct and management failings in parts of the Murdoch empire, and on the other is being asked to rule on whether that empire should be expanded?
Last week, the Minister for Digital and Culture, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), told the House categorically that the Prime Minister had not discussed the bid at her recent New York meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Will the Secretary of State repeat that assurance? How does she know? Will she tell us what was discussed, because after all, Leveson recommended that those meetings be minuted?
Yesterday Rupert Murdoch wrote to The Guardian to say:
“I have made it a principle all my life never to ask for anything from any prime minister.”
Let us just pause to take that in for a moment. Members will recall John Major’s testimony to the Leveson inquiry, in which he recalled Rupert Murdoch asking him to change his party’s policy on Europe and warning that if the Conservatives would not change their European policies,
“his papers could not and would not support the Conservative Government.”
Does the Secretary of State believe Rupert Murdoch or the former Conservative Prime Minister, and what implication does the contradiction between them have for the application of the fit and proper person test?

Karen Bradley: I repeat that I cannot comment on the merits of the bid. I can say that, as and when a formal notification is made, there will be 10 days for me to make a decision as to whether to refer the proposed merger.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the Leveson process. I remind him that we have opened an open public consultation on that, which I hope he has responded to—I am sure he has. At the end of the consultation I will look at the responses as a separate matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the meeting the Prime Minister held in September. She had a pre-arranged meeting with Wall Street Journal editors. Mr Murdoch dropped in to that meeting. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the proposed takeover was not discussed.

Philip Davies: I am not entirely sure that a company controlled by Rupert Murdoch trying to buy another company largely controlled by Rupert Murdoch is of the great public interest that the Secretary of State seems to think it is. This is really all about the Labour party not liking Rupert Murdoch. If Richard Branson was in the same situation Opposition Members would not be saying a word about it. So may I ask the Secretary of State to ignore the siren voices on the Opposition Benches and not treat it with the great importance with which they think it should be treated? After all, the BBC controls huge amounts of TV news and national and local radio news, and we do not hear a peep out of the Opposition about that.

Karen Bradley: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on these matters. I just repeat that I will not be making any comments on the merits or otherwise of the bid.

Stewart Hosie: When these matters were last discussed, the Minister of State said that the plurality rules were clearly set out and the Secretary of State would follow them very carefully if she was required to make a determination. Now that the bid has been agreed—although no formal notification has been given—can the Secretary of State throw some light on the process? Does the separation of the Murdoch print and broadcast interests change the Government’s view of plurality since the last bid? How much weight will the Secretary of State give to that separation when considering whether a public interest intervention notice should be issued?

Karen Bradley: No formal notification has been made. At this stage I will be making no comment on the merits or otherwise of the bid.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I note a hereditary interest in relation to the forces of the great Rupert Murdoch and commend my right hon. Friend for her proper even-handedness in dealing with this matter and her correct responses. May I also note that we have seen the true voice of socialist envy that, thanks to Rupert Murdoch, who risked his whole business on it in about 1990, Sky has provided incredible choice to millions of people. It is amazingly popular. Instead of decrying this wonderful achievement, we should be proud that it happened in Britain and that this huge investment is potentially coming into our nation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind and will not fall tempted by the siren voices of socialist ingrates.

Karen Bradley: I note my hon. Friend’s comments, but I repeat that I will not be making any comments on the merits or otherwise of the bid.

Angela Eagle: The Secretary of State is quite properly saying that she will not comment on the decision itself, but that does not mean that she   cannot answer some of the questions that are being put to her today, and she should not hide behind that. So I ask her again: has she read the 2012 Ofcom report on the conduct of James Murdoch—yes or no?

Karen Bradley: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I will not be making any comments on the process, its merits or otherwise.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister is at pains to tell us what she cannot do, and we respect that of course, but can she give us an assurance that she will use her office to ensure that there is a proper plurality of ownership of the media in this country, and that the views of this House, which have been clearly and frequently expressed, will also be respected at the end of this process?

Karen Bradley: I fully appreciate the level of interest in the matter. I am sure that the House will continue to debate these issues, and it is absolutely right that it should do so. It is equally important, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that I discharge my functions in line with the legislation and in accordance with my quasi-judicial role.

David Winnick: Is it not likely that Mr Murdoch had a point when he said—he was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) from the Front Bench—that he had never asked
“for anything from any prime minister”?
Why should he? A Tory Government know what he wants and usually give it to him without any difficulty whatever.

Karen Bradley: It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the relationships that Prime Ministers of all parties over the years have had with members of the press.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Secretary of State has made it very clear that she does not feel able to comment on the content of this decision because it is a quasi-judicial decision, but does she share my anxiety that the timing is all in the hands of Murdoch? She has a responsibility to respond within 10 days. It might not be an accident that he has chosen not to notify the bid at the moment, in order to ensure that Parliament cannot take a decision before she has to. What is she going to do about that, now or in future?

Karen Bradley: At the moment there is no decision to take. This is a decision that will be taken by me as the Secretary of State. I reassure the right hon. Lady that I will not be taking a break over Christmas, whether there is a formal notification or otherwise.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) could not have struck a more wrong note with his remarks. No one on the Opposition Benches feels any envy for the Dowler family or any of the other victims of phone hacking. The Secretary of State cannot tell us what she is going to do, but the findings of Leveson part 2 may be relevant to the fit and proper person test.  When she came to the House and announced that she intended to consult on it rather than just go ahead straightforwardly, did she have any inkling that this takeover bid was going to be made?

Karen Bradley: The first I knew about the takeover bid was at the same time as everyone else in the House, when it was announced in the press.

Mark Durkan: Given the concerns that have been raised about the timing, and the fact that it could well be that the Secretary of State will have to fulfil her quasi-judicial role during the recess, if she could not answer questions about what she has previously read today, will she ensure that when she does take a decision, on which she will be questioned in the House, she will be able to answer that she did read all of that relevant material? On understanding the parliamentary and public interest, does she accept that most of it goes to those points that are in the public interest grounds in the legislation?

Karen Bradley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will fulfil my role exactly in line with the legislation and I will of course be answerable to Parliament in the decisions that I take.

Kerry McCarthy: I know that it is pointless to ask the Culture Secretary to give a view on the bid, but may I express to her the clear views about the bid of more than 100 constituents who have emailed me in recent days? Will she undertake to come back to the House on 9 January to give us an update?

Karen Bradley: I hear the hon. Lady’s comments about her constituents’ concerns. I will of course update the House as and when there is anything to say on the matter.

Christina Rees: When the original bid was abandoned in 2011, the former Prime Minister said that it was the right thing to do for the country. Does the Secretary of State disagree with him and think that the time is now right? If not, will she please refer it to Ofcom?

Karen Bradley: My apologies, but I cannot answer that question at this stage. I have a quasi-judicial role in this process; I know that the hon. Lady has a legal background and will understand that. I simply cannot make comments at this stage.

Margaret Ferrier: I know that this question will not be answered, but I am asking it just the same. A substantial number of my constituents have contacted me in the past week about the bid, and they are all of the same opinion—that Mr Murdoch has too much influence over our media. Many would like to see his bid referred to Ofcom for that very reason. However, does the Minister agree that at the very least, any takeover should be delayed until the Leveson part 2 inquiry takes place?

Karen Bradley: I apologise again, but I cannot make comments on the merits of the bid or the process.

Chris Matheson: With reference to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) about the former Prime Minister David Cameron’s comment that the withdrawal of the decision was the right one, what assessment has the Secretary of State made about what might have changed between then and now?

Karen Bradley: I will be making no comments on any assessments that I have made at any time. I will be going through a full process in line with the legislation. I need to ensure the integrity of that process for all concerned.

Paul Flynn: We are all concerned that next year the leader of the free world will be a blunt-brained snake oil salesman who was elected by a prostituted press to whom truth is secondary and sometimes entirely irrelevant. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the very strong views that we need to maintain in this country those qualities of balance and fairness that we have imposed on the BBC by statute? Will she bear in mind the grave danger of a prostituted press?

Karen Bradley: I do not think anyone is in doubt about the hon. Gentleman’s views.

Chris Matheson: We are about yours.

John Bercow: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sedentary chunter.

Jim Shannon: Does the Secretary of State agree that allowing the takeover might put pressure on, or take away, the diversity of our press? Is it the Government’s or the Secretary of State’s intention to ensure that we have a free press, not controlled by one person or one company?

Karen Bradley: I have a very specific role, which is set out in legislation. I will fulfil that role with the utmost integrity.

Seema Malhotra: My constituents have also contacted me with their concerns about the bid, in particular the threat to the valued diversity of our press. Will the Secretary of State commit to addressing this point when she comes back to the House in the first week after the recess? Will she also confirm that if she has not yet read the 2012 Ofcom report on the conduct of James Murdoch she will have done so by the time we come back, and refer to its conclusions in her response?

Karen Bradley: I can assure the House that I will update the House as and when decisions are taken. I do understand that there is the utmost interest in this matter, but I have a quasi-judicial role and I cannot make any further comment at this stage.

Points of Order

Dan Jarvis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to a recent parliamentary question on the staffing levels of the Child Poverty Unit, the Minister for Employment, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), said:
“responsibility for child poverty policy and analysis transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions.”
Given the significance of the decision to abolish the Child Poverty Unit, may I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on whether it would not have been more appropriate to have made a written ministerial statement, at the very least, informing the House of that decision?

John Bercow: The means by which a Minister seeks to clarify a matter that is the subject of parliamentary interest is for that Minister. Sometimes a Minister will sense that the salience of the issue or the inquisitorial appetite of the House is such that a statement, rather than simply an answer to a written parliamentary question, might be judicious, but that is a judgment for him or her to make, not the Chair.
On the closure of the Child Poverty Unit, I note that the hon. Gentleman has a Westminster Hall debate on that matter this very afternoon. It would be surprising, to say the least, if he did not raise and ventilate fully his concern, on this and related matters, on that occasion.

Chris Stephens: rose—

Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady is so illustrious that I am going to save her up.

Chris Stephens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are probably aware that one of my hobby horses is the Government’s sneaking out of written statements rather than coming to the House. On 8 December, the Home Office announced the extension of asylum accommodation contracts. The Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), wrote that the Government were
“committed to ensuring that destitute asylum seekers are accommodated in safe, secure and suitable accommodation”.
The Scottish Refugee Council was advised yesterday that there have been changes to the sharing criteria in that contract, which include: allowing siblings of the same sex to room-share until the age of 20, no longer 16; allowing siblings of the opposite sex to room-share until the age of 16, no longer 10; allowing willing mothers to return to shared accommodation; and allowing children up to the age of 16 to share with their parents.

John Bercow: Order. May I very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the House requires the full details of the statement that he is clearly very keen to share with us? The matter to which he alludes is certainly important, but it did not require rehearsal in the Chamber today. That is why it is not being aired today in the way that, for example, another matter has been aired very fully.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that various vehicles are open to him to pursue the issue. Knowing him as I do, I feel certain that he possesses the ingenuity to use one or other of those vehicles. I shall be looking with great interest to see how he does so, after he has had a brief break over the Christmas period.

Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Many of us who have been Ministers know only too well that quasi-judicial processes have to be very carefully handled in this Chamber, but I wonder whether you could assist us. We had a statement from the Secretary of State on the Sky bid, but she refused to answer a range of other questions, such as whether she had read a 2012 Ofcom report that is published and in the public domain. Surely she refused to answer that question not because she was in a quasi-judicial process, but simply because she did not want to tell us whether she had read it or not.

John Bercow: I would not want to impute any particular motive to any Member of the House, including the Secretary of State. What I would say to the hon. Lady is that I understand her irritation—I was going to say “frustration”—on this matter. The Secretary of State has interpreted her responsibility, in the way she described to the House, very narrowly, which she is entitled to do. Colleagues on either side of the argument can make their own assessments of how the Secretary of State responded to the various inquiries put to her. I feel sure that significant numbers of Members will want to return to this matter in the new year.

HOUSE OF LORDS (EXCLUSION OF HEREDITARY PEERS)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr David Hanson presented a Bill to amend the House of Lords Act 1999 to remove the by-election system for the election of hereditary peers; to provide for the exclusion of hereditary peers from the House of Lords over time; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read the Second time Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 116).

RAIL OMBUDSMAN

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Bercow: We now come to the ten-minute rule motion. I say that with a degree of interest, because it means that the hon. Gentleman has up to 10 minutes only in which to articulate his case. I feel sure he will do so with an eloquence worthy of Demosthenes.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Rail Ombudsman to scrutinise performance and complaints and represent the interests of passengers; to make provision for the Ombudsman to levy fines on train operating companies for late running and cancellation of trains and about the use of such fines; and for connected purposes.
How on earth I will be able to do all that in 10 minutes, given the shambles of Govia Thameslink Railway, is a wonder. The GTR franchise, which covers Southern Rail, is not working. Notwithstanding the current problems with industrial action, incompetent management and Department for Transport failings, which have been aired all too frequently in this House, the system for pursuing complaints and achieving financial or other redress is simply not fit for purpose.
My Bill would apply to the whole UK rail network. While not intended as a silver bullet to resolve the problems of Southern, it would go some way to disincentivising complacency over consistent failure to operate a decent service when some form of normality returns to our rail service—oh for those happy days of some form of normality in the Southern region! The truth is that when things go wrong on the railways, train operating companies can actually benefit.
There are two types of compensation payments at present. The first is the so-called schedule 8 payment from Network Rail to the train operators, when something goes wrong with the infrastructure—points failures, for example, or the notorious signal box fire at Penge in Reggie Perrin’s day. It is designed to compensate train operators for the impact of poor performance on their revenue and helps to reduce the risk premium factored into franchise bids.
Extraordinarily, the train companies are not required to pass on the compensation they receive in this way to the passengers who actually suffer the inconvenience and loss. It has been estimated that some 60% of rail compensation comes in this form. The Social Market Foundation calculated last year that the train operators raised £107 million from Network Rail for delays, while passengers received just £26 million of that, meaning that the train-operating companies profited by some £81 million.
The second form of compensation is that directly paid out by the train operators to the passenger when they are liable for delays and cancellations caused by staffing problems, rolling stock breakdown and so forth. The problem is that it depends specifically on passengers lodging a claim, which can be very bureaucratic and is often rejected on technicalities. The take-up rate for claims is very low. While recent events on Southern have changed that a fair bit, it comes from a low base.  In 2014, the Office of Rail and Road calculated that only 11% of passengers always or usually claim compensation. Subsequently, that has increased to around 35%, but it is still a minority. So passengers do not claim, and the train operators such as GTR benefit. On strike days, when salaries and energy costs are less, they are able to profiteer as well.
GTR’s turnover is around £1.3 billion, over £1 billion of which comes from the central Government to run the train service. Yet in an answer to a parliamentary question earlier this year, the then rail Minister stated that just £2 million has been levied against GTR in respect of cancellation and short formation performance benchmarks, while some £2.2 million was paid out to passengers under the passenger’s charter and delay repay compensation. That is a total of just 0.4% of turnover, which is hardly an incentive—and that is before netting off the payments to GTR from Network Rail. Added to that, all train operators have difference schemes and methods of compensating, and there is no industry benchmark. That is hardly an incentive to run an efficient service. There must be a better way of doing it.
Given that 47 million passenger journeys were cancelled or significantly late last year, this is a big problem that affects many regular travellers—our constituents. We need a much more effective awareness programme, alerting frustrated passengers to what their rights actually are. There is certainly no sign of that from the train operators themselves. The current problem is that the passenger can like it or lump it. The complaints procedure largely relies on the good will of the train-operating company beyond the minimum delay repay obligations, if it accepts the application at all. As the consumer champion Which? has put it,
“The current complaint handling landscape in the rail sector is inadequate. There are major gaps in the provision of alternative dispute resolution…with no effective route for redress and escalation of complaints if a train company does not resolve a complaint. Transport Focus, which handles some complaints informally, has no ability to impose binding decisions, no power to resolve complaint appeals, and is not an appropriate body to deliver alternative dispute resolution. Which? believes the Government should establish a transport ombudsman”.
That is what I am proposing.
Frankly, it is extraordinary that there is currently no ombudsman system for rail complaints. That could and should have been introduced when the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was extended to rail companies, giving passengers the same legal protection they receive when paying for any other service or goods, improving their ability to obtain redress beyond the current delay thresholds and receiving that redress specifically in cash rather than travel vouchers.
What will my Bill do, Mr Speaker? I know you are desperate to know. First, it will overhaul the compensation scheme, creating a much tougher financial impact on train operating companies and a fairer and easier way of compensating passengers, with a more reliable reflection of the inconvenience and costs they have suffered. Every time a train is late beyond an agreed threshold, is cancelled altogether in advance or at short notice, or overruns a station, a penalty fine will be paid into a central pot independent of the train operator and before  affected passengers have to claim. Passengers would then be able to claim directly from that pot, but in a much more centrified way.
Last week, I met a company that has devised the technology through which regular passengers can download an app, track arrival at stations, automatically lodge a compensation claim where appropriate and then get compensation paid directly into a bank account without any paperwork having to be lodged. The app goes live in January. By automating an unwieldy claims process, it will also reduce administration charges for the train operators. The Office of Rail and Road super-complaint response report gave a range of estimates for the manual processing of claims: between £1.80 and £39 per claim, which is extraordinary. I know that the Minister has promised automated refunds to a payment card, but that is still some years away and is fraught with verification problems, whereas this technology is available now.
Secondly, the penalty pot will be used to help fund a new beefed-up rail ombudsman, which I shall come on to in a few moments. Thirdly, any remaining funds will be used to offset fare rises, thereby giving a further payback to inconvenienced and hassled passengers. Although the new scheme is no silver bullet alone, it would recalibrate the balance of power back to aggrieved passengers, incentivise the train operator to stop running a shoddy service and instil a sense of urgency in operators to get problems sorted out.
The second part of my Bill will establish a new rail ombudsman with real teeth and proper statutory powers. This is based on practical proposals discussed with Ombudsman Services, which have now been endorsed by the consumer watchdog Which?. Yesterday, it said:
“The Government must introduce a new ombudsman that all train companies have to sign up to so that passenger complaints are properly heard and resolved.”
Which? supports my Bill.
The rail ombudsman would be based on the energy ombudsman model, which is already in operation and could be adapted for the rail sector to deal with both the train-operating companies and Network Rail, helping to clarify responsibility for passenger problems in any given instance. The introduction of a rail ombudsman would help level the playing field between passengers and rail operators by establishing a strong independent second tier of redress. A rail ombudsman would not only greatly enhance the level of redress available to passengers, but help to improve confidence in the rail sector—something that is currently sorely lacking in the Southern region in particular.
The rail ombudsman would take up and resolve individual complaints and direct compensation, while overseeing the operation and thresholds to the penalty pot that I have described. It would lead to the awarding of compensation based on realistic levels of actual loss suffered by passengers. Typically under Direct Repay 15, passengers can currently claim just 25% of the cost of single fares. Of course the Minister recently announced one-month compensation for long-suffering passengers, but a one-month refund on a season ticket does not go far when people have to pay to stay in London or for a taxi back late at night from Three Bridges to the Sussex coast when they find themselves stranded.
The ombudsman would collect and analyse data to identify frequent and common problems of individual operators and be able to direct them to make remedies  or suffer forfeits. The rail ombudsman would identify longer-term problems within the sector as a whole, and work with the Government to recommend action to mitigate any impact before it causes further detriment to passengers.
As I said at the outset, these proposals alone do not represent an immediate solution to the mess that the GTR franchise is in at the moment. I believe, however, that they represent a practical way forward to change the dynamics within the rail industry when something goes wrong and our train-travelling constituents lose out first, last and most. Above all, I appreciate that most of our constituents are primarily concerned with being able to use a reliable rail service that gets them to work, school, college, hospital appointments and home again at roughly the times that they anticipated.
Compensation for an unreliable service is secondary. Our constituents may not be terribly interested in apportioning blame for current problems; they just need a service that works when they need it to work. I do not think those two things are mutually exclusive, and I believe that the measures in my Bill are long overdue and will help to achieve both objectives. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tim Loughton, Sir Nicholas Soames, Sir Peter Bottomley, Ms Harriet Harman, Maria Caulfield, Nusrat Ghani, Peter Kyle, Huw Merriman, Chris Philp, Henry Smith, Caroline Ansell and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.
Tim Loughton accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 117).

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

LEASEHOLD AND COMMONHOLD REFORM

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move,
That this House has considered leasehold and commonhold reform.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for accepting the bid for the debate from the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold reform. I co-chair the group with the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who I am happy to see is present. More than 50 Members of both Houses have joined the APPG since our inaugural meeting, which took place only a short time ago. I want to record the group’s thanks to Martin Boyd of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and Sebastian O’Kelly of the Campaign Against Retirement Leasehold Exploitation—Carlex—who act as our secretariat and advisers.
This debate is overdue. The front page of a library briefing makes the fundamental point. It states:
“Despite a good deal of legislative activity in this area, dissatisfaction remains.”
I am sure that, were this not the last day before the Christmas recess, many more Members would be present, because the issue affects millions of homeowners. Under the heading “The extent of leasehold ownership”, the briefing states:
“DCLG published a technical paper…in August 2014…to produce a new estimate of 4.1 million leasehold dwellings in England in 2012-13…The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership …estimated that there were around 5.37 million leasehold properties…at the end of 2013.”
On commonhold, the briefing states:
“Commonhold tenure is viewed as offering several advantages over the leasehold system. It does not remove the obligation on residents to contribute to management/maintenance and major works, but it is argued to be a more transparent system.”
Describing the advantages, it states:
“Commonhold will address the problem of lessees being beholden to an absentee landlord who cannot be bothered to carry out building maintenance and management, or who is more interested in trying to make a profit at their expense.”
I shall say much more about that later. The briefing continues:
“Commonhold will also remove the problem of leasehold property being a wasting asset. Commonholders will each have a perpetual interest, effectively akin to a freehold, in their individual unit. Standardised commonhold constitutional documents should be of general benefit.”
In my constituency, as in many, there is a mix of leaseholders: those who have bought former council properties under right-to-buy legislation—perhaps second, third or even fourth purchasers—and/or those who have either bought new properties built in east London as part of its regeneration, or bought into converted warehouses and the like which have been transformed into homes. The constituency contains the second highest number of leasehold properties in England, after Cities of London and Westminster.
Common issues affecting both types of property,  new private sector and former public sector, include the length of leases, service charges, insurance fees,   refurbishment costs, recognition rights, ground rents and dispute resolution procedures. I shall deal with all those briefly, but I shall not cover event fees, forfeiture or retirement homes, because I am much less familiar with those problems and I know that other Members intend to raise them.
The length of leases varies from 99 to 999 years. Many people who buy their homes under leasehold believe that they are purchasing their property, but they are not; they are leasing it. Because some ground rents double every 10 years, mortgages can be more difficult to secure later in the lease for resale. As for service charges, in the former public sector there have been improvements in recent years, with more transparency of costs and detail to show reasonableness of charges. Previously, constituents of mine have been charged for lifts in blocks with no lifts, and for garden upkeep in places with no gardens. Despite the improvements, however, there are still anomalies. The HomeOwners Alliance writes:
“Many new build freehold houses…on new housing estates are being sold by developers subject to a requirement for the owners to pay maintenance/service charge for common areas on the estate…freeholders in this situation (unlike leaseholders) are unable to bring claims to the Property Tribunal if they feel these charges are unreasonable.”
My wife and I own such a freehold property.
Also in the private sector, I have tried to help residents on two large sites in my constituency, Canary Riverside and West India Quay. Both are controlled by a gentleman—well, I would rather say a person—called John Christodoulou, under the Yianis group. LKP has been very involved in assisting the residents. Both sites have tried to work constructively with the landlord’s managing agents over many years, but have suffered from very poor management. Both had not had accounts for years, regardless of what the legislation may say is required. Only when the Canary Riverside site took its latest action through the tribunal process, to replace the landlord’s agent through fault, did the accounts emerge, and what they showed was a far from pretty picture. In the decision, the tribunal was highly critical of many aspects of the landlord’s management, including the fact that it had not had a professional planned maintenance programme and then, having obtained one, had failed to implement it.
Since the court’s appointment of a new manager, which began in October this year, the landlord’s solicitor, a Mr David Marsden of Trowers & Hamlins, appears to have bombarded the court-appointed manager with a huge number of emails: 22 in October, 29 in November, and 37 so far this month. It strikes me as very important that when the landlord’s management is removed through fault, as happened in this case, the tribunal should act to protect the court-appointed manager from what appears to be little short of harassment. The residents at Canary Riverside wrote to me yesterday, saying:
“In addition to bombarding our Tribunal-appointed Manager with emails, the Manager is being ground down by the continuous litigation being brought by the landlord in an attempt to undermine the FTT’s”—
first-tier tribunal’s—
“decision and frustrate the new management.
There is a real risk that Canary riverside lessees could find themselves in a worse position than if we had never taken the Section 24 action: i.e., back under the management of a landlord who knows the law does not protect lessees in large mixed-use developments.
The FTT-appointed Manager is increasingly finding himself in an untenable position, forced to spend more time dealing with the landlord’s demands and injunctions than resolving the estate management issues he was appointed to remedy.
Section 24 appears only to work if the landlord agrees, even if a decision is unequivocally in lessees’ favour.
Christodoulou is currently seeking a Judicial Review in an attempt to undo the FTT’s decision (having had three appeals fail at the FTT and Upper Tribunal).
He is also taking every opportunity to apply to the High Court to chip away at the Manager’s powers. On Friday he obtained an injunction that effectively granted him and his staff unfettered access to the Canary Riverside estate. An estate he no longer manages.
The lessees at Canary Riverside spent over two years securing the FTT’s decision—at a considerable cost, both financially and in respect of the time and energy needed to pursue legal action. It has been a huge endeavour.
But it seems the…hearing was just the beginning of our legal battle. The landlord’s fees were £335,000 for the FTT hearing. Since then there have been three appeals, a Judicial Review pending, and several High Court injunction hearings. Legal fees could easily top £500,000, and our (billionaire) landlord knows that the more legal resources he throws at winning, the more likely he is to win.
Section 24”—
and I say this to the Minister—
“is not fit for purpose, and we”—
the residents—
“will end up over £500,000 poorer”—
half a million pounds worse off—
“and with nowhere else to turn.
None of this impacts the value of Christodoulou’s investment—the only people damaged by poor estate management and high service charges is the lessees.”
I should welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Over at West India Quay, Christmas eve will mark a new and dismal milestone: the sixth year of accounts will become overdue. The residents have had none since 2010, and more than £10 million of their cash is unaccounted for. In its 14 years of occupation, their building has never been subject to a planned preventive maintenance report. I ask the Minister, “How can that be allowed?” In fact, it can be allowed because there is no enforcement action for the residents to try to ensure that the property managing agents and owners do something about it.
Those are two examples of the problems faced by residents who are up against powerful, uncaring and unscrupulous landlords.
In 2012, the consumer organisation Which? estimated that £700 million was being overcharged in service charges each year. That was when everyone thought that there were between 2 million and 2.5 million leasehold homes. Given the size of the sector as we now know it to be, that suggests that £1.4 billion may be being overcharged each year. That cannot be right either.
Freeholders in one block in my constituency were asked for £78,000 to insure a building containing about 32 flats. Several of them worked in the sector, and they were sure that £15,000 would have been a more appropriate charge. They settled for £22,000 after negotiation.
Refurbishment costs mostly affect former council blocks, and leaseholders are almost at the mercy of councils or housing associations. Trying to secure detailed bills or tenders, guarantees on completion of work being undertaken and assurances of the quality of the work being undertaken has proved very difficult and unreasonable, especially from public sector organisations. Fortunately, this is changing, but progress is very slow.
Recognition rights is a source of much consternation in both the private and the public sectors. I have one group of residents in Campbell Road who won the first-tier tribunal for recognition of their residents association, but their social landlord, Tower Hamlets Homes, is appealing against the ruling. There is an inbuilt sense of reverse snobbery and prejudice against leaseholders among some in the social housing sector.
There is recognition resistance in the private sector, too. One of my first such cases, nearly 20 years ago, was from residents in the Cascades block, the first high-rise private residential block on the Isle of Dogs in docklands. The freeholder was harassing them in an attempt to frustrate their efforts to set up a residents association  to represent them on service and maintenance charges.
On dispute resolution procedures, I have mentioned the problems at Canary Riverside and West India Quay, but the costs of high-powered barristers defending freeholders at tribunal is now a disgrace. The procedures were originally supposed to be relatively informal. That has totally changed. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), Paddy McHugh, has written to me saying:
“Any lessee who files a case at tribunal can expect to face a Barrister acting for the landlord. The costs in issue can outweigh paying for legal representation while a landlord is usually free to put his legal costs onto the service charge even against lessees not party to the case, whether or not the landlord is the respondent.”
This surely cannot be right either. Where is the justice in a system that favours billionaires protecting their profits over ordinary working people trying to protect their homes?
Ground rents have been the subject of a number of articles in the press and media reports recently.

James Berry: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on this important topic, which was raised with me by the Charter Quay residents association in Kingston—and since he raises the point, I should say that I am a barrister, although thankfully not in the landlord and tenant sector. Does he agree that many people entering these leaseholds are entirely unaware that the landlords have the power to make huge increases in ground rents, and if this practice is deemed acceptable, at the very least tenants going into these agreements should have very clear information about what the landlords can do, and what their rights are as tenants and how they can challenge the landlord?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. As has been evident at a number of meetings that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and I have had with legal and property experts and individual constituents from across the country, many people do not recognise the significance of this issue, including many lawyers. People are keen to get their hands on their first home or their new property  and therefore will take the advice of lawyers who may not be fully conversant with the implications in this regard.
There is, to an extent, some relatively good news. After the outcry in a number of media reports, several of the large developers have announced that their policy of doubling ground rents every 10 years, which is the equivalent of 7% interest rates in perpetuity, is untenable and they are returning to the retail prices index. I am sure that the hon. Member for Worthing West, who is my hon. Friend for the purposes of this debate, will be raising that more extensively later. This is a success that the campaigning charities, residents associations and others have had. A number of the developers are backtracking, but that is not happening right across the piece. The question to the Minister is how we protect everybody from the rogues who will not do the right thing and prevent them from being subject to this abuse.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has brought this subject up. My calculation is that if a £250,000 house has a £250 ground rent that doubles every 10 years, over 60 years the successive leaseholders will have paid £157,500. For that still to be 1% of the value, the house will have to be worth £80 million; that is in the first 60 years of a lease.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman emphasises the absurdity of this situation and the abuse. It is a big issue, as he knows; he has been campaigning on it and the all-party group will continue to campaign on it. We have had a modicum of success so far. I think there is an opportunity to drive this issue into reverse and deal with this charge, which should have been peppercorn or tokenistic, but which is now a much more difficult issue for purchasers. There is an opportunity to take it back into the realms of where it should have been or to abolish it altogether.
The aims of the all-party group are relatively simple: to reduce the opportunities for exploitation; to alleviate the distress and hardship of leaseholders, particularly the elderly; to do away with the high costs of the property tribunal; to examine incidences of lease forfeiture; to examine the value of retirement leasehold properties; to unearth and publicise scandalous behaviour of professionals involved in the leasehold sector; to examine insurance commissions and matters where leaseholders pay but are not party to the contract; and to ensure that the right-to-manage legislation acts as intended.
We have had a number of successes so far, including the growth of the all-party group. It has been well attended, with many professionals at the round tables organised by LKP and us, helped by Miss Katherine O’Riordan from the hon. Gentleman’s office, to make sure that the meetings are successful. We have had significant media interest, and interest from Ministers and shadow Ministers; I am pleased both the Minister for Housing and Planning and his shadow Minister are in their places today. We look forward to hearing what they have to say on these issues. We have had interest, too, from senior civil servants at the Department for Communities and Local Government, which we are grateful for because it demonstrates that both Government and Opposition are taking this matter seriously. There is a recognition that everything is not quite well here and things need to be examined. We also have today’s debate in which to raise the issue.
Some matters are easier to resolve than others, and some will require legislation, but it is not all bad news. The industry is also trying to clean up the sector, with the Association of Residential Management Agents, led by Dr Nigel Glen, introducing ARMA-Q, its code of practice for property management companies, and the appointment of a regulator for the sector to oversee and assist in dispute resolution procedures. Many decent professional organisations have joined, and even a number outside ARMA are decent companies too, but sadly there are still too many bullies, cowboys and crooks in the sector. For the Government to feel comfortable with the legislation as it stands is unacceptable. We need not only better regulation, better protection and advice, but legislation. Millions of citizens are looking to their politicians of whichever party to remedy their distress.
In conclusion, I return to my original comment from the Library:
“Despite a good deal of legislative activity in this area, dissatisfaction remains.”
This problem goes back to the ’90s. Governments of both main parties have tried to resolve it and have been unsuccessful, so in some senses it is not a party political issue. But until a Government recognise the unfairness, the robbery and the dissatisfaction, many good people are condemned to suffer. Politically, for me this is a vote winner for whichever party pledges action, and all parties should.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—my hon. Friend—referred to things going wrong on purpose, and things sometimes going wrong by mistake.
To avoid something going wrong by mistake, I ask the Government, and particularly the Ministry of Justice, to abandon the opportunity of winning a forfeiture order on a residential home over a smallish debt. By all means, in extremis, an asset might have to be ordered to be sold, but the surplus value should certainly go to the leaseholder and should not be forfeited to the freeholder.
One of the worst cases is that of Plantation Wharf in Battersea. Two elderly people applied to challenge management costs of about £9,000. The leasehold valuation tribunal—the lower property tribunal—agreed with them in large part and struck off about £7,000. There were then applications for costs. One of the leaseholders had read on the Government website that the cost of going to the leasehold valuation tribunal was £500 and therefore assumed that there was nothing in the cost application. By inattention, he ended up bouncing between various courts and owing over £70,000. A forfeiture order was granted, with even the mortgage lender not realising that its part of the asset would be forfeited as well.
When the insurance company that provided the mortgage woke up at the last moment—at the prompting of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, to which I pay tribute—the debt was settled and the man was able to go off to his new home with the bulk of his equity. He should never have been forced to pay anything, because if someone wins £5,000 out of £7,000, for example, or £7,000 out of £9,000, that should be regarded as a win, not a score draw. At it happens, the freeholder in that case was not an avaricious crook, but people who were  more used to commercial dealings and thought that everyone was professionally advised and could afford to pay costs.
I have a challenge to everybody in the field: do not assume that other people are as clever, wily or crooked as you are. Whether this was criminal or not is not for me to judge, but one crook is Martin Paine—pain with an e on the end—who has taken “lease” beyond sleaze, almost by adding a letter at the beginning, and into an art form. He owns a number of short leases, and anyone who wants to sell them has to get an extension. My understanding is that he offers legally valid, informal extensions. Under a formal extension, the ground rent reverts to virtually nothing.
Martin Paine’s informal leases contain a provision that doubles the ground rent every 10 years or so, but that is written into the lease in such a way that even experienced solicitors fail to find the wording or to connect the clauses together. A person, who may be a first-time buyer of a low-value flat, may then discover that they are asked for enormously high ground rents, and they are enormously high because Martin Paine has written the provision back to the first granting of the lease, not from the time of the extension. A flat might therefore be worth £150,000, but the leaseholder will be asked for thousands of pounds a year in ground rent, with the prospect of that going up. When the leaseholder complains, Mr Paine’s practice, as I understand it, is to say, “Sue your solicitor.” I therefore recommend that providers of indemnity insurance for solicitors get together, which I think they can do without being a cartel, and ask, “What pattern of claims have we had from those we insure?” to see whether this crookedness can be stopped.
Martin Paine will then occasionally buy back the flat at a low price and remarket it with the same terms. To do that once could be regarded as incompetence; to do it twice on the same property is deserving of the word “crooked.” Every single auctioneer should do what we had to recommend to one respectable auction house: look at the leases. It turned out, of course, that Martin Paine had not actually supplied the lease to the auctioneers early on—it was withdrawn.
We should not have to rely on the chance action of a campaigning charity such as LKP or Carlex—the Campaign Against Retirement Leasehold Exploitation—or a passing Member of Parliament, to get things put right.
I ought to declare an interest in that I own the lease on a flat in a freehold building in Worthing. We had a good landlord and a good managing agent, which has now been succeeded by another good managing agent. The freeholder decided that he was going to retire and suggested to the six leaseholders that we might like to buy the freehold from him—and we did. We have not had any problems at any point. Together, we are a good association, and we had our most recent meeting on Friday. However, that is not the experience of all others.
I come now to one of the latest manifestations of things going wrong. Over the past 20 years, some house builders have returned to selling houses on leasehold terms. I have it by communication from one house builder that the price it can get for selling a house leasehold is within 1% of selling it freehold. What is the reason for selling it leasehold? Some argue that the tradition in the north-west is different—it should not  be—and some say that if someone can get away with something, others will copy. There are now examples in north London of builders producing roughly the same kind of home on either side of the street, with some freehold and some leasehold.
If a leasehold contains a provision that doubles the ground rent every 10 years, the example that I provided earlier on applies. I might have got the maths wrong because I was doing this late at night, but it is wrong to argue that an ordinary home that started at £250,000 needs to be worth £80 million in 60 years’ time to justify a ground rent that doubles every 10 years—by the rule of 72, we know that that means that it is going up by over 7% a year. I ask the corporate responsibility experts who occasionally go to the annual general meetings of quoted companies to start raising that with the house builders. I would also like the Home Builders Federation to talk about how the practice is justifiable. Its representatives might say that it is just a commercial deal by some of its members and nothing to do with them, but I say that it is to do with them.
I see that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) is in the Chamber. The people who established and ran Cadbury were the sort of people who did not need Members of Parliament to remind them of how to behave; they knew in their bones, their blood and their heart that people should be treated properly.
I own some shares in Persimmon and some in Taylor Wimpey, and I might buy some shares in other builders. If necessary, I shall go to their AGMs, giving notice in advance, to ask what they will do to unwind the problems that they created in the past. Taylor Wimpey says that it was unaware of what was going on before it came together, because it is an amalgamation of many businesses, but it knows now. The problem comes with putting things right.
If a building firm—I am not focusing on Taylor Wimpey, because I think it has realised that there are issues to investigate—sells the freeholds, it prevents itself from being able to treat its leaseholders properly.
Many leaseholders buy a flat through solicitors who work for the seller, and those solicitors will probably have attendance notes and perhaps some letters that point out the provisions of the ground rent. That may or may not be the case. What I doubt—I asked one solicitor, but have not yet received the evidence—is whether the attendance note and the letters point out that if someone were to buy their freehold in the first three years, they might be able to get it very cheaply, perhaps at a multiple of 10 times the ground rent, but that if they wait and the first freeholder sells to another, the new freeholder may say, “Actually, because interest rates have gone down, the value of the ground rent has gone up, and you have to buy it at the new multiple of the value of the ground rent.” Why do the Government not just agree a straightforward graph to show what the purchase price for a freehold ought to be at various stages?
I interrupt myself now to say that I was going speak for a long section on hedonic regression and Sloane Stanley Estate v. Mundy. As part of that case, Wellcome Trust interests managed to persuade an upper property tribunal of two people to make a change in the valuation of short leases, which probably lifted the apparent cost of extending leases by about 40%.
It is good for the Wellcome Trust to get good publicity for saying that it will give £1 billion to good causes—mostly medical research—this year. I do not mind its chief investment person being paid £3 million if they have lifted the capital value of the assets by 18% in the last year.
If £1 billion of those assets involves the estate that was bought from the Henry Smith Charity, which was established to help children and others with its income, and if the Wellcome Trust bought that estate because it managed to persuade people, without a public interest representative present, that the cost of enfranchisement or extension should go up so enormously, something is seriously wrong. It will take people in government and their advisers to work out what that is.
If there is an appeal against that Mundy case, I hope that the Government will associate themselves with it and try to make sure that, on the hedonic regression, the calculations go back to before the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, because after that Act the values were affected by what it said. I think that James Wyatt and Parthenia Valuation are more likely to be right. I hope that the appeal succeeds, and that the Government will make sure that if it does not, the decision in the Mundy case will be reversed by statute.
I return to the issue of smaller leaseholders. If I were a small leaseholder applying either for an extension or to buy my freehold, I would find that the costs that the freeholder has could be put back on to the leaseholders, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse. But what about the costs to me? I have to go to surveyors and lawyers. I am new to this and I am dealing with freeholders who do this multiple times a week or a year. They are very experienced and they are often very rich.
Perhaps the Government could bring in simple graphs to cover most cases where people could ask, “Where do I stand on the graph? What is the length of the lease? What are the terms?” The Government could say, “By the way, there is going to be a cap on ground rents, so you can’t go monetising those and making the leaseholder buy them out on some prospective multiple just because the bank reference rate is very low and the apparent cost of buying them out becomes very high.”

Jim Fitzpatrick: I apologise for interrupting as the hon. Gentleman is making a good point. When the dispute resolution procedure was originally designed, was it not supposed to create a relatively informal arrangement whereby residents could go to a tribunal to argue their case? That has been completely distorted by some of these unscrupulous freeholder landlords bringing in high-powered barristers and then charging their fees to the residents, whether they win or lose.

Peter Bottomley: I agree completely. Moreover, that reminds me that the Government have had a review of LEASE—the leasehold advisory service—and I fear that the decision for it to try make itself sustaining within the next four years is wrong. LEASE is chaired by Roger Southam, and he and his wife know quite a bit about leasehold property. His predecessor was Deep Sagar, during whose time LEASE would hold fundraising conferences where it would take the surplus, and the people who paid to come would listen to experts explaining how they could gain extra income from leaseholders.  For example, someone might have stood up there and said, “Do you know, the freeholder gets the managing agent to arrange the insurance, it is paid for by the leaseholders and the commission can stick with the freeholder end?” My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) may address the issue of insurance later. So if the commission happened to be 40% or 50%, a leaseholder would be paying twice as much as they should.
What happens when the leaseholders want to get together? Again, that will be a point of law for the Government to consider. I do not think that anyone expects the Minister to be able to answer all the points raised today, but we will want to see early in the new year a proposed programme of action, which can then develop into reducing the abuse and improving the happiness.

Andrew Smith: I commend the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for all their work on this incredibly important subject. Given all the complexity that the hon. Gentleman is describing, and the scope for manipulation and exploitation, is anything resembling the current pattern of leasehold tenure actually just not fit for purpose? Do we not need to move to a system that has either freehold vested in resident-controlled management companies, or a form of commonhold that works properly?

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that.
We are talking about a number of issues do not always come together. The first is that commonhold was recommended by the Law Commission 20 or 30 years ago, and Parliament and government thought they have made legal provision for it to come in, but it does not work. We understand that by 2009, within seven years of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, officials in the Ministry of Justice and perhaps Ministers, too, knew it was not working. Some who are not very knowledgeable say that it cannot work. Others who have been outside the country know that no other country—no other significant country, as far as I know—has kept the system that we developed 100 or 200 years ago.
Besides the flat in Worthing, I have a home around the corner from here. It was built in about the 1720s and it had a 99-year lease, on the basis that in that time it would either fall down or burn down; people were not expecting houses to go on lasting forever. I pay tribute to George Thomas, now Lord Tonypandy, who, in his firebrand days, campaigned to get leasehold reform and rent Acts in place so that the people in south Wales could be saved from bad landlords and freeholders.
I have in my hand the record of the debate on 8 March 1991, when Dudley Fishburn, then the MP for Kensington, paid tribute to his predecessor, Brandon Rhys Williams, who was one of the early people to start campaigning on leasehold. In a remarkable contribution, Terry Lewis, the then MP for Worsley, made reference to a number of the abuses that existed then. This was a non-party issue then, as it is now. Nearly all the scandals that Dudley Fishburn was talking about apply now, especially to the shorter-term leases.
Commonhold works, perhaps under different titles, in parts of Australia, particularly in New South Wales, with strata holdings. People from there have come before our all-party group and our forums to talk about this. The problems we have are not found in Canada, New Zealand or South Africa, or in France and Germany. Let us consider what happens when we give people interest in the maintenance of their flats. At the moment, if someone has a leasehold and improves their property, the value goes eventually to the freeholder. If they can get rid of the freeholder, not only is the abuse stopped, but people are encouraged to invest in things that matter to them. I strongly recommend that 1991 debate to hon. Members, and I was going to go through it at greater length.
What I will do is talk about some of the abuses. Benjamin Mire, a well-known surveyor and leasehold property manager, was going to be removed by the Ministry of Justice as a person not fit for judicial office, but by the time the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office had concluded its investigations, he had retired or resigned days before he would have been dismissed. Had he not done this, the full report would have come out into the open, but as he jumped before he was pushed it did not. He is not fit for judicial office and he is not fit to go on being a registered member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The problem is that his clever lawyers, and perhaps a display of not enormous competence by RICS, have left the details of the charges against him by RICS not fully out in the open. There were 35 cases where he or his company, Trust Property Management, were appearing at the property tribunal. There were failings by almost everyone involved.
The problem with the tribunal is that it does not have the power to fine for repeat offences. If it did, Mr Benjamin Mire would have been fined significantly. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing, but let me give an example of a finding in one case where the trust acted as a property manager. It was stated:
“The landlords have had scant regard to the law and the RICS Management Code in respect of the costs of the proposed interior decorations.”
How can a self-regulation system that does not consider such court findings as warranting even an admonition retain the confidence of the general public? The Government have argued for years that there is no need for statutory regulation, but can anyone name a group that supports that position? Even the main managing agents trade body, the Association of Residential Managing Agents—ARMA—has been asking the Government to regulate the sector.
Leasehold is the only part of the housing market where an unregulated person can hold huge amounts of leaseholder funds and yet has no obligation to act in the leaseholder’s interests. Let me remind the House of something: when the freeholder appoints a managing agent, who does the managing agent work for? It is the freeholder.
I ask Ministers please to establish a legal position so that the leaseholder has an interest in everything that happens either with their money or in the block where they own the lease.
In the CBRE report—the most recent I have seen is from 2013—there are references to “soft income”. We still have too many examples of landlords, sometimes  those who even own their own agents, skimming on huge insurance commissions. That was reported by the Financial Conduct Authority as recently as two years ago, when it said—this backs up what I said earlier—that it was not uncommon to charge commissions of more than 40%. The worst situations are those in which the landlords’ own managing agents provide contracts through companies they own, which can result in poor services and high costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport might remind the House later of whether there was such a link between the freeholder and the managing agent in Plymouth.
I cannot distinguish between one Tchenguiz brother and the other, or between them and the Tchenguiz trusts, so I will talk about Tchenguiz interests and those who know can pick up on whether they are involved or affected. There are two points on which I criticise them. One was when they controlled Peverel, property managing agents who owned a business called Cirrus—as in the cloud. When some of the company’s large number of freehold blocks were said to have needed the call system replaced, there was a competition between the very big firm, Cirrus, and two little minnows. So, if we think that 99.9% was Cirrus and 0.1% was those two little minnows, there was collusive tendering. Sadly, the economic crime unit of the police, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Serious Fraud Office did not manage to get together at the same time to work out how to deal with this rip-off of millions of pounds from leaseholders.
When Peverel/Cirrus discovered that the game was up, they declared that they had been involved in collusive cartel bidding. We know from the Virgin-BA case that the first to declare that they have been involved in a cartel is penalty free. The fact is that the size of Cirrus compared with the size of the minnows made that an absurd judgment. If the police, the fraud office and the FCA had been together, they would have stopped it, but they did not, so those involved got off scot-free.
The other Tchenguiz interest was in Charter Quay in Richmond upon Thames—

James Berry: Kingston.

Peter Bottomley: In Kingston. The numbers  might be wrong, but they are illustrative. Imagine the Tchenguiz interest buying the freehold of Charter Quay for £750,000 and then, in the same year, writing the value up to £2 million, £3 million or £4 million, before borrowing, say, £2 million against it. When the leaseholders eventually get together, they discover on the accounts that the Tchenguiz interest—or someone—has been running an office phone through the lift phone in the block of flats to get a good deal from the telephone providers.
The leaseholders then get control of management and apply for the freehold, only for the freehold block to be estimated not at £750,000, and not £2 million, £3 million or £4 million, but at just under £1 million. It came down to about a third of the valuation that the new owners had put on it. In that case, I think, there was a settlement before the thing was finally determined by the court, but the figures are there.
The freehold went from £750,000 to £900,000, having gone to £2 million, £3 million or £4 million in between. I ask the professional regulators for the bankers involved in the loan, the surveyors who went along with the  valuation and the accountants who did the accounts to ask how they explain this. I think that there was professional incompetence or collusion, and that is not what professionals are supposed to do. I hope that it is not happening again now.

James Berry: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for mentioning Charter Quay in my constituency, as well as the fantastic campaigning work done by the residents association to overturn a situation caused by the skulduggery of the Tchenguiz operation. I should point out that I have a property that I rent out—not in Charter Quay or anywhere in the constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of people living in leasehold properties are older people who have downsized and can ill afford the additional and inflated costs and expenses associated with such properties?

Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
If a leaseholder wants to exercise their rights under the law or to stop being abused because someone is trying to assert rights that they do not have, they have to know 22 Acts of Parliament, regulations and codes. Tribunals, whether in property or employment, ought not to allow some clever QC to come along and say that there is one thing that they have not been aware of that means that the rest of the case falls away; they should ask whether most of the case has been established, in which case the precise details of law—so long as what the tribunal decides is not unlawful—should carry through. The presumption should be that if there is trickery—legal or economic—or unfair pressure, the small person’s voice should come out on top.
Even during the publicity over the past two or three days, people who have spoken up about the abuse they have experienced because of the ground rent scandal have received lawyer’s letters on behalf of other lawyers saying, “You shouldn’t be saying that.” What is this place supposed to be like if we cannot hear our constituents say what their experiences are? I asked those lawyers to respond to me by 10.30 today, so perhaps the email has come in while I have been speaking, but I think that people ought to start asking whether these are sensible letters to be sending. We should be saying that part of being a lawyer is trying to make sure that everyone has their voice heard properly.
Lord Faulks said on behalf of the coalition Government in 2014 that he did not plan to review the commonhold/leasehold format. I think he should—not him, it is not personal, but the Government certainly should. It ought to be possible with the help of good lawyers. Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC, who presented a paper that is in the notes of the all-party group, has given good advice on how that could happen. I give strong commendation to Philip Rainey QC, who addressed our meeting last week and gave various proposals for what could work and could do so quite fast. That does not solve all problems easily, but it makes most difficult problems become easier and makes easy ones go away.
It is tempting to go on for rather longer than the House would wish, but I have one recommendation. Going back to LEASE, the advisory service, I do not think that it has ever had a leasehold representative as a member of its board. If we are to have six members on the board, I would have at least two with leaseholder  interests—one who is a leaseholder and one who is part of the campaigning groups and charities that try to help to represent leaseholders. I would certainly ask those who appoint the chairman of LEASE to consult broadly—not just with people like me—about the experience, ability, talents and attitude we want the chairman to have to give guidance to Anthony Essien, the chief executive, against whom I make no critical comment as he has always been responsive, helpful and straight. If the appointment of a new chairman is coming up, I ask the Government to consult as there is some expertise around and in every other field I have known people get consulted if there is a serious basis for that.
I turn briefly now, if I may, to park homes. In my constituencies and the constituencies beside it, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and Arundel and South Downs, some park homes have recently been developed in a way I would regard as a shocking example of misused legal knowledge. The person involves takes a park home, says that it is a holiday home, and that it is not, and tries to fit it between the two, charging enormously high rents. I ought perhaps to apply for an Adjournment debate on the case I have. The Minister should invite Members to send in constituency cases of park home problems and people using the law in ways that are not justified. I encourage the experts in Arun District Council, who have been doing the best they can, to send in their cases to the Minister, because I think action could quite easily be taken there.

Bob Stewart: I am about to take the chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on park homes, so my hon. Friend’s comments immediately interest me. The problem is not just the rent that unscrupulous people charge. It is usually elderly people who live in park homes and they are charged a fortune for utilities. They pay double the rate for electricity, water, sewerage and so on.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he will sign me up as a member, I would be happy to join the group. I will ask Arun to send the information to him.
I had not realised how much work I had been drawn into on this topic. I looked at the files this morning and they are enormous, most of the material generated by people more expert than I am. I came into it because some elderly, frail, poor leaseholders were being abused. Because that intervention worked, I was more drawn in. I would prefer to have spoken in the later debate about other cases of injustice that affect individuals, but the leasehold/commonhold area is so big and, as we explained to the Backbench Business Committee last week when it kindly heard the application by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, there are issues of structure of government.
The motion suggests that leasehold and commonhold issues have been considered. They have not been properly considered as a whole since 1991 and they need a great deal more attention. I have been involved in a number of campaigns in my parliamentary life. Not one has brought in so many cases from other people’s constituencies, so this debate will help to raise awareness among other Members of Parliament. I thank the House for listening to me at greater length than I would normally speak.
Given that there are 5 million to 6 million leaseholders in the country, far more than public estimates, the Office for National Statistics should be able to work out the trends and numbers as national statistics and clarify the situation so that we can see what good is being done and what more good needs to be done, and so that we can also find a way of making the property tribunals work at the lowest possible cost with the smallest number of cases.
I strongly recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister discussing whether he can get graphs which show what the cost of extending or purchasing freeholds should be, which will eliminate a lot of the work for the good professionals and abolish all the opportunities for the bad professionals, the bad freeholders and the crooked managing agents to go on treading over poor people who ought to have the chance to live in their homes at peace.

Justin Madders: What we are discussing today is nothing short of a national scandal. It is the PPI of the house building industry. Every now and again a sharp practice comes to light which is totally unconscionable and of which every reasonable person would say, “We cannot allow this to continue. Parliament must act.” This is one such occasion.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) on securing this important debate and on their excellent contributions today. They should also be commended for their work on the all-party parliamentary group and for shining a light on a situation that is a national disgrace. As we have heard, there is a huge range of issues underneath the misleadingly simple title “leasehold”, and I hope that today’s debate will bring about progress in resolving some of the huge injustices that I, too, propose to speak about. I echo the tribute paid to the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for the excellent professional assistance that it has provided to us and to the many homeowners affected by the issues discussed today.
Thousands of people around the country who bought new homes in good faith are the victims of what can only be described as a racket by some of the country’s best-known developers, who between them have received millions of pounds from taxpayers to provide affordable homes and have also been the recipients of generous subsidies as a result of policies such as the Help to Buy scheme. As we know, the practice that has developed is to sell new homes on a long-term lease, with a misleadingly low ground rent and buy-out price. This practice has become common in my constituency over the past few years and, contrary to what is asserted by some developers, it is not a tradition in my constituency. It now seems to be part of the business model of a great many developers. It is a clever way of selling more units, by dropping the asking price a little to reflect the fact the property is leasehold, but failing to make it clear that in the long run the homeowner will pay far, far more than they would have done if the property had been freehold.

Chris Green: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when ground rent or other charges double, it would be usual to expect double the service? As this is not the case, it goes against natural justice.

Justin Madders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that his constituency is affected by the issue. I have yet to see any evidence that higher ground rents result in any kind of service, particularly for the properties that I am talking about. Obviously, leasehold flats are a slightly different matter. I remember when it was common, if there was a leasehold, for the rent to be described as a peppercorn rent. The implication was that that was nothing other than a symbolic exchange.

Peter Bottomley: A service charge or maintenance charge is one thing; the ground produces nothing. I meant to pay tribute to Bob Bessell of Retirement Security who, when asked at the all-party meeting what the ground rent was for, said that it does not produce anything of value so he goes for only a peppercorn. It seems to me that if he can say that openly, others should as well.

Justin Madders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is spot-on. The notional figures that we are used to seeing as ground or peppercorn rents ought to come back. We have seen a drip-feed of figures coming in, relatively modest to start with—more than a peppercorn, but still modest—and the ratcheting up of those figures in some leases is my main concern today.
When people buy their home, they like to know who they are buying it from, but leaseholds are often sold on to third parties who can then vary the agreed terms of the leasehold, at which point—this is a scandal—developers claim that it is no longer anything to do with them. This is an issue affecting my constituency. I have been contacted by a number of constituents affected by it. One, Beverley O’Malley, bought a Taylor Wimpey property. That company provided her with a letter at the point of sale stating that she would have first refusal to buy the leasehold at 15 times the ground rent, plus £199 for legal costs. That lease has been sold on without any option to purchase at this time, and she has now been informed that the letter provided by Taylor Wimpey is not worth the paper it is written on.
Another constituent of mine bought her property from Bellway in 2010 with a lease of 150 years and a ground rent of £125 per annum. In July 2015 a quote of £3,750 to purchase the freehold was provided, which equated to 30 times the ground rent. However, in March 2016, when attempting to purchase the freehold, my constituent was informed that the lease had been sold to a company called Adriatic, with Homeground acting as the management company, although quite what it is managing remains to be seen. Following this transfer, my constituent received a new quote to purchase the freehold at £12,750. That is more than 100 times  the ground rent. No explanation was provided as to why the price had gone up so much, but counter-offers for purchasing the freehold were made by my constituent’s solicitors, which resulted in a revised quote of £6,750.
The quadrupling of the buy-out price for the ground rent, then the halving of it after negotiations started, as well as information given to me that the prices quoted can vary significantly for almost identical properties, suggests that the buy-out costs are calculated on nothing more than what the investors think they can get away with. The same constituent recently obtained planning permission to extend her home, but was told that she needed to obtain consent from Homeground in order to  proceed, for which she was charged a fee of £333. However, following payment of that amount, an additional £2,440 was requested for the same purpose. This amounts to nothing less than racketeering and it should be stamped out.
Possibly the most alarming case that I have heard is that of my constituent Lindsay Lloyd, who bought a Taylor Wimpey property in 2009 on a long-term lease. She was reassured that such leases were common practice and that she would be able to purchase the freehold in future for £2,600. She received that advice from solicitors who were recommended to her by Taylor Wimpey, and she felt under some pressure to appoint them. She was advised that the lease did not impose an unduly onerous or prejudicial burden.
I wonder whether whoever was advising Ms Lloyd had even read the lease. I have, and it states that the ground rent will double every 10 years, so next year, for example, it will rise from £175 to £350 a year, which is a big increase. I can accept that £350 a year for ground rent does not sound too bad, but in 50 years’ time it will be over £11,000, in 100 years’ time it will be over £350,000, and in 200 years’ time—I hope the houses last that long—it will be a staggering £367 million a year. Nobody expects to be around in 200 years’ time, but anyone who wants to buy the house will think twice once they realise that they would be agreeing to a contract that commits them to an annual payment of millions of pounds. What that means in practice,  of course, is that nobody would purchase the property, so where does that leave existing owners? I really want to hear about that from the Minister today.

Peter Bottomley: The solicitor’s advice is a critical part of this. If the solicitor does not tell the first purchaser that this is a penal clause, what advice would they give to a prospective buyer six years later, who would be facing a doubling of the ground rent in four years’ time? It seems to me that the advice ought to be the same, but I bet it would not be.

Justin Madders: As a former practising solicitor—not in this area, I hasten to add—I think it is fair to say that some solicitors are now probably more alive to the traps that can be found in leases. I have looked at my constituent’s lease, and to say that it is not set out very clearly would be an understatement, but it still should have been picked up on.

Bob Stewart: Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has just said, surely it is the responsibility of a solicitor helping someone to buy a house to point these things out, because they are professionally qualified and they should know very well what is happening. I cannot understand why that does not happen.

Justin Madders: I think that individual solicitors have to answer for what they have done. From my knowledge of the profession, I think that over the years we have seen a much more streamlined process for advising people on their purchases and sales and lots of standard documentation, which I think is why some of these things have been allowed to happen. I suppose the real question is this: why would a developer want to put such an onerous clause in a sales document, knowing  that if word of it got out people would think very carefully about whether they wanted to buy the property? As we know, they are selling these leases on to third parties, so actually there is no benefit to them. That is the heart of it. I do not think that the legal profession comes out of this with any great plaudits, but clearly the fault for having the clauses in the first place lies with the developers, and I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation for why they are there in the first place.
My constituents feel that they have been duped by Taylor Wimpey. The reservation form that they signed stated that the ground rent was £175 a year, and there was no mention of it doubling every 10 years. I understand that Taylor Wimpey has now decided not to sell any new properties on a leasehold basis, which is good news—

Peter Bottomley: Any new houses.

Justin Madders: Yes, any new houses. But that does not help my constituents, who believe that they have been comprehensively stitched up. That is why this place has to take action.
At the moment there is no way out of this for my constituent. She recently enquired about purchasing the lease and discovered that it has been sold to a company called E&J Estates, which is now quoting her a price of £32,000 to purchase it. No wonder it quoted a price over 10 times what she had originally been offered, given what it could rake in over the years. However, having already made significant commitments to purchase the property in the first place, my constituent was simply unable to stump up such a significant amount.
As disappointing as the response from E&J Estates was, it was a struggle even to get a response from it at all. It initially refused to speak to my constituent about her circumstances, stating that it had a “long-term interest in the property.” Well, so does she: it is her home. And it is a home that has been saddled with an obligation so onerous, so outrageous, that nobody with an ounce of decency in their body would not say that this place had better do something about it.
It is not enough to say that leasehold valuation tribunals are there to resolve these issues, because these companies are going out of their way to obstruct and delay the process. I do not know whether anybody here has taken the time to read one of the tribunals’ decisions, but I suspect that very few people would feel comfortable going into one of them without a lawyer, and probably also a surveyor. Certainly the freeholders seem to do that, and from what I have seen they also put the cost of their representation back on to the homeowners as well, rubbing salt into an already very expensive wound.
Although I have named Bellway and Taylor Wimpey, the practice of selling new builds on a leasehold basis appears to be commonplace across the majority of new build estates in my constituency. I should make it clear that the examples I have given of how my constituents are adversely affected do not apply to every developer selling leasehold properties, although every developer I have contacted has indicated that they intend to sell on their interest in the leasehold at some point. That really is where things go wrong, because once they sell them  on, the new owners have no interest in anything other than extracting the maximum amount of profit from their asset.
Of course I accept that some properties by their nature lend themselves to being leasehold, but that does not apply to the vast majority of the properties being built in my constituency, which are detached or semi-detached family homes. There really is no reason for those properties to be sold as leasehold. It is a cynical business decision, which will in the long run damage the reputation of those involved.
It is also disappointing that the newest development in my constituency, currently being constructed by Redrow Homes, is also being sold on a leasehold basis. Redrow tells me that this fact is made known to purchasers before they reserve their property, although I note that on its website the promotion of that particular development makes no mention of that. What is particularly disappointing is that Redrow, despite my asking twice why it feels the need to sell large detached family homes on a leasehold basis, offers no justification whatsoever.
It is quite clear that this situation needs to be addressed. I have several questions for the Minister. My first is very simple: are the Government happy with this state of affairs? If not, will he set out today, or in the very near future, exactly what he will do to stop these scandalous practices? Does he agree that developers should be prohibited from recommending a particular solicitor to purchasers because of the clear potential for a conflict of interest and the clear failure, as we have seen here, to provide the best advice?
Will the Government consider legislating to prevent ground rents being doubled every 10 years? Will they intervene to give some hope to those now saddled with the eye-watering commitments that nobody—not the developers, not the lawyers and not the Government—warned them about? Will the Minister consider withdrawing and recouping taxpayer subsidies to any development found to be ripping off householders in this way? Will the Government ensure that there is greater transparency at every stage of the process, with purchasers receiving clear information about the arrangements they are entering into?
Finally, I would like to pass on the following message to anyone listening today. If you are looking to buy a new home built by Taylor Wimpey, Bellway or any other developer, look very carefully at the terms that are offered and ensure that you receive independent legal advice. My message to the developers themselves is to act transparently and offer leasehold only where it is strictly necessary.

Oliver Colvile: My interest in this important topic stems from two long-running cases in my constituency. They relate to two right-to-manage properties housing mainly elderly and retired residents: Elim Court and Regent Court. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is also interested in the matter, has given me an enormous amount of advice, for which I am grateful. I also want to thank Rebecca Cattermole and Martin Boyd for all their help in preparing me for today’s debate; I have no doubt they will mark me out of 10 when I have concluded.
I should declare an interest. I still have an interest in a company I set up, which gives property developers advice on how to manage public consultation. I also own a leasehold in my constituency, and I am delighted to say that the other leaseholders and I own the management company. I think we manage the whole thing very well indeed.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West on securing this incredibly important debate. I also thank them for their stewardship of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform.
The Elim Court case has attracted national attention to right-to-manage law. Elim Court’s RTM company, which was established for this purpose, made an application to acquire the right to manage a block of flats at Elim Terrace in Plymouth under part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Act created a no-fault right to manage, under which, on satisfaction of some preconditions, a qualifying majority of tenants of a building containing leasehold flats can establish an RTM company to take over management of the building from their landlord. The no-fault part of the Act meant they did not have to show fault in the way the building was managed.
Elim’s landlord declined to participate in the RTM process and opposed it through the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal—now more commonly known as the first-tier tribunal—which accepted his arguments on a technicality. On appeal, the decision was upheld, and the case thrown out. My constituents in Elim Court have been battling for years for the right to manage their property. The legal system that was put in place in 2002, while welcome, is in desperate need of vast improvement.
This really is the tip of the iceberg. Since its inception in 2002, the right to manage has proved popular with leaseholders who want to take control of badly managed blocks. However, it is an over-complicated scheme, riven with pitfalls and technicalities that are difficult to overcome without sound legal advice. I have been told that gaping holes have emerged in the 2002 legislation that need to be addressed urgently due to the increase in RTM applications and to landlords refusing to release their tight grasp on highly lucrative management arrangements, while finding every possible loophole to thwart applications by leaseholders and residents. That is an abhorrent way to treat anyone, let alone the retired and the elderly.
A further issue that Elim Court and Regent Court have encountered is the high costs involved in tribunals and appeals, which have, indeed, become something of a cash cow for lawyers. The fact that RTM is so plagued by loopholes means that the no-fault basis on which leaseholders can obtain the right to manage is proving costly. Currently, Elim Court is awaiting a hearing at the Court of Appeal—as I explained earlier, the process has been highly expensive. If the residents were to walk away now, they would be set to lose between £25,000 and £30,000—a very large amount.

Peter Bottomley: Through my hon. Friend, may I suggest that the Law Officers look to see whether they can take over the case and carry it forward at public expense? If this is a question of justice and law, it is about time Justice Ministers got involved.

Oliver Colvile: I thoroughly agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving such clear advice, as he generally does.
I would now like to go into further detail about the Regent Court case. In 2012, during severe storms in Plymouth, the roof blew off the building. No insurance claim was paid, leaving the leaseholder with a staggering £114,000 bill. The insurance company, AXA, claimed that the condition of the roof previously would have voided the policy, prompting the landlord to seek to recover £140,000 from the leaseholders—more than the bill for the roof repairs.
After much investigation, the ombudsman has only just reached its wholly unsatisfactory decision, declining to investigate whether there was a fault in the claims-handling process, because the insurance company had asked it not to. It remains unclear whether the landlord withdrew the claim or it was withdrawn because it was disputed. What I have learned recently is that the loss adjuster’s report may have missed key information that would have meant that the claim should have been paid out to the leaseholders.
The case illustrates that leaseholders have few rights if the insurance company and the freeholder do not want a matter investigated. Again, elderly residents are being treated in this way. Regent Court is a particularly shocking case, as the landlord has not had an interest in managing the building since the second half of 2013, when the leaseholders took control via their RTM company.

Peter Bottomley: The House is following this case keenly. Is my hon. Friend telling the House that the freeholder had the responsibility to make sure the roof was maintained, but did not, and that he had the responsibility to deal with the insurance, but it was apparently not valid or he was not going to claim on it? The leaseholder therefore failed doubly—in terms of the cost of the roof and the cost of the insurance.

Oliver Colvile: That is exactly the position, and it certainly needs to be looked at.
The ombudsman’s decision highlights the fact that millions of leaseholders face the same position across the country. Some landlords also happen to own an insurance broker, as we heard earlier, creating loopholes and conflicts of interest across the board. The Financial Conduct Authority is fully aware that leasehold building insurance is a problem and has reported that high commissions—up to 40%—have been paid on insurance. In 2014, the Competition and Markets Authority investigated leasehold property management, and one of its specific recommendations was that the FCA should look into the matter.
I would like to see a more flexible, more transparent and less complicated system for RTM, insurance issues and service charges for leasehold properties. The current system has been picked apart by lawyers, and the original Act is not fit for purpose. I urge the Government to relook at leasehold and commonhold reform and to sit up and realise that possibly millions of people across the country face very real blockades, when all they want to do is manage their own property—a right this Parliament gave them almost 15 years ago.
To conclude, it seems almost unfathomable that we expect pensioners to cope with some of our most complex legislation. If we in Parliament do not understand the process, and officials do not understand the process, why on earth should we expect these elderly consumers to? It may be too late for the residents of Elim Court and Regent Court, although I am keen to pursue those issues, but we owe it to future leaseholders to ensure that they are not swindled out of hundreds of thousands of pounds by greedy landlords and cowboy insurance companies.

Ruth Cadbury: Before I start, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, to wish you, your staff and all the staff of the House all the very best for Christmas and a very happy new year.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) on securing this important debate, and thank them for their work with the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold reform. I thank the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the House of Commons Library for the work they have done in supporting me and other Members in preparing for this debate.
The majority of people in this country aspire to own their own home, and for those lucky enough already to own a home or to be able to buy, a leasehold property often suits their needs better than a freehold house. Long leaseholders are in a landlord-tenant relationship with the freeholder. The rights and obligations of the two parties are governed by the terms of the lease agreement, which is supplemented by statutory provision. When it works, leasehold is fine—the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Worthing West spoke of their personal experiences—because there are transparent charges, well-itemised and properly justified service charges, appropriate resale values, and so on.
Homeowners want and deserve security and safety, but this debate shows that for far too many, their dreams of home ownership have turned into a nightmare. When one has worked hard to save up to buy a home, and budgeted to pay for servicing any loan and other costs that one reasonably expects, one should expect security and then to be able to plan for one’s future.
Probably all MPs represent leaseholders of one category or another. As we have heard, many MPs have examples from their casework of issues that have been brought to this debate. Too often,
“leasehold property sells buyers short at every step.”
Those are not my words; they were in an excellent article in a paper I do not usually read—the Daily Mail—in September 2015. Leaseholders are finding problems they had not expected when they bought their home. I think that “duped” was the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). These are some of the examples that we have heard about: managing agents imposing arbitrary and multiple charges; lack of transparency of service charges that are way overpriced; estate owners such as  those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse having no right to a tribunal on charges; unexplained and unforeseen increases year on year—sadly, in my experience in Brentford, housing associations are sometimes among the worst culprits; and the cost of extending leases when they drop below the 70-year, or even 60-year, period. I was pleased to learn a bit more about hedonic regression from the hon. Member for Worthing West; I thank him for that.
We have heard about exorbitant charges for capital works on common parts, with little advice on how to pay. Too often, sadly, local authority landlords are some of the worst culprits in this regard.

Gareth Thomas: I apologise to the House for being unable to be here for the start of the debate. May I offer my hon. Friend another example that demonstrates why the leasehold system needs reform? The residents of Platinum House, owned by Luke and Brian Comer, in my constituency have sought to secure the right to manage, yet the owners have used a whole series of tricks to delay the exercise of that right. Does she think that is a further example of the need for reform?

Ruth Cadbury: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent additional example where the right to manage has been proved not to be as simple and straightforward as it should be. Too many people who want to manage their property collectively with their neighbours are finding it too difficult and costly with too many hurdles.
We have seen many complicated hurdles put in the way of leaseholders exercising their right to manage or the right to enfranchise. Dispute resolution procedures are complicated and costly. Lessees are having to pay the landlord’s legal costs. Resale charges are up to 20%, which then suppresses resale values. I ought to declare an interest in that this happens particularly in the retirement sector, and my mother has just bought a flat in a retirement community. There are the questionable tie-ups between freeholders and managing agents, and the solicitors they recommend, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. There is the scandal of lease forfeiture, again brought to the debate by the hon. Member for Worthing West. New homes on their own plots are being sold by volume housebuilders on 999-year leases when they could be freeholdings. Despite advice given to many first-time buyers in these instances, I must say that no, 999-year leases and freeholds are not one and the same thing.

Peter Bottomley: Another illustration of this issue comes from a CBRE report of 2013 saying that some people who are developing property with leaseholds are now selling the freehold in advance so that they escape the responsibility of offering it to the leaseholders after two years.

Ruth Cadbury: That is yet another example of poor practice—and that would be a generous term.
We have heard about the difficulties of people who buy park homes. They often do that because they cannot afford bricks and mortar, and park homes look, on the surface, to be an affordable option. We have heard about the charges on owner-occupiers for the “privilege” of modifying their own home, even if they  have planning permission. We have heard about buyers who want to purchase the freehold finding it incredibly difficult to do so; some big-name volume housebuilders such as Taylor Wimpey and Bellway have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) raised that matter.
Finally, and perhaps most shocking of all, there is the scandal of what I call the ground rent scam whereby a new asset class has been created as ground rents rise and rise, and properties are being treated as a marketable commodity over the heads of the owner-occupiers. Several hon. Members have mentioned this shocking situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston described this national scandal as the PPI of the housebuilding industry.
I am looking forward to the Minister’s response. Before he thinks of saying that the examples brought here today from Members across the House are exceptions that prove the rule, I want to say that they are all too common. The APPG is a new group that has a large membership. A recent survey by LEASE, the Government’s agent, showed that 53% of leaseholders regret their purchase. If there are 4 million leaseholders in this country, and that is probably an underestimate, then 53% of 4 million represents an awful lot of people. Legislation has been changed to benefit far fewer than 2 million people.
Before the Minister thinks of talking about weighing up the relevant benefits to different parties as an excuse to delay radical change and review, I have to ask him whether it is right that people can buy and sell freehold interests and ground rents as a lucrative tradeable asset. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership suggests that developers alone are now earning an additional £300 million to £500 million a year from ground rent reversionary sales of their head leases and freeholds—and that does not include the buyers and sellers of ground rent funds, such as Ground Rents Income Fund plc, whose website I visited earlier today. This asset class is one of the highest-performing investments for canny investors. I think that following this debate we know why.
Yet hard-working people—those who are doing the right thing by investing their hard-earned cash into buying a home—are being ripped off left, right and centre. The Government must act urgently to stop this gross exploitation of hard-working homeowners who are finding that they cannot sell their homes. In fact, the Government must do more than that. The Labour Government introduced commonhold in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who is here, was a key player in that. Commonhold works in the rest of the world—for example, in Ireland and in most of our ex-colonies—and it could work in the UK. Labour introduced the Act, but we accept that it is unfinished business. The Government should review it, consider amending it, and implement the necessary changes.
We call on the Government immediately to stop the scandal of exploding ground rents, which is the biggest legitimate scam in Britain. They should review how commonhold works and make it work, and also end leasehold tenure. We strongly argue that we need to update, consolidate and simplify all the legislation, not just add another Bill and yet more complexity. The Government should consider revising the law on replacing  leasehold forfeiture, as the Law Commission has recommended. We ask the Government to consider proper regulation of managing agents and to simplify the right to manage, so that residents are able jointly to take control of the block in which they live.

Peter Bottomley: We need to make it much easier for any individual leaseholder to have access to the contact details of every other leaseholder, not just tenants, so that they can apply for their rights. At the moment, for all sorts of bad reasons, they are blocked from being able to do that. I hope that the Government hear what the hon. Lady is saying and that they will work out practical ways to make things easy.

Ruth Cadbury: The Government need to look at that detailed and critical issue. We look forward to not just an acknowledgement of the issues, but a solid commitment from the Minister to look at them. To date, the Government have shown no sense of urgency, just half-hearted promises to end the problem.
Reform of leasehold law is “unfinished business”, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne. There are too many loopholes in too many pieces of legislation, and the balance of power remains with the freeholder and their agents.
A Labour Government would give leaseholders security against rip-off ground rents and end the routine use of leasehold ownership in new developments. Will this Government do that? Labour will cap ground rent charges and set out a plan to end their routine use. We need a clear commitment from the Government. We all owe that to the millions of leaseholders in this country, for now and for the future.

Gavin Barwell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this really important debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting their request. Both hon. Members have shown over the years a real dedication to leasehold reform, and I appreciate their advocacy not only for their constituents, but for prospective and existing leaseholders across the country.
As we have heard, there are more than 4 million leasehold homes in England. That figure represents an important and significant proportion of the housing market. It is also a growing proportion of the housing market: 43% of all new build registrations in England and Wales in 2016 were leasehold.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I apologise for intervening on the Minister so early in his speech; we look forward to hearing what he has to say. May I remind him that it was campaigning by LKP and others that got the DCLG to review the figure and change it from 2.1 million to 4.1 million? The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has already called for a statistical review, because LKP thinks that the figure is closer to 5.5 million and might even be higher. The number to which the Minister refers, which is a significant part of the housing market, may be even bigger.

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully. Whatever the actual figure—clearly, the work that was done resulted in the increase to which he refers—I think we can all agree that it is a significant part of the housing market, particularly in Greater London, which he and I have the privilege of representing.
Leasehold legislation has been amended on many occasions over the past 50 years to improve leaseholder rights, including the right to extend their lease, appoint a new manager, challenge unreasonable service charges and purchase the freehold. All of that legislation has helped, but it clearly has not solved the problem, which is probably a lesson for all of us. Why has it not solved the problem? I think that we can point to two clear things. First, the legislation is seen by many as complex, as a number of hon. Members have said, and that can cause problems for leaseholders and freeholders alike. Secondly—the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, referred to this—the 2016 national leasehold survey showed that 57% of leaseholders either somewhat or strongly agree with the statement:
“I regret buying a leasehold property”.
That is a pretty sobering statistic.
We should accept at the outset that, whatever changes we make to the law, and whatever system we have for managing properties where a number of people have an interest in the land, some tension is inevitable. Even in those countries that have a commonhold system, some people in a particular block of flats might be keen for further improvements to be made, while others, who might be more financially challenged, might be more nervous about their service charge bills.
The hon. Lady said that she was concerned that I was going to respond by saying that the concerns that we have heard are just exceptions that do not represent the real problem. I assure her that the leasehold survey shows that they are not exceptions and that there is a widespread problem that needs to be addressed. I was asked directly whether I felt comfortable with the current situation. I assure hon. Members that I most certainly do not feel comfortable with the level of concern right across the country. Indeed, I am very keen to explore how we can promote greater transparency and fairness, and to work with all interested parties to improve leaseholders’ experience of home ownership.
This is a timely debate because it has highlighted concerns that others have raised, including the Law Commission as part of its consultation on the 13th programme of law reform. We are working closely with the commission and will use the examples raised today in our discussions with it.
I want to consider the issue of houses being sold as leasehold, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) have mentioned. Leasehold has been a part of the housing market in this country for decades, even centuries. In the right circumstances, with the right safeguards, it can serve both leaseholders and freeholders well. As we have heard today, however, that is often not the case.
Analysis by LKP suggests that nearly 9,000 houses were built and sold last year as leasehold. Some have no shared services or estate management functions. In fact, they seem to exist only to create a reliable income  stream from the ground rent, permissions to alter the property, and selling on the freehold at some point in the future. Developers can maximise their return by selling the freehold interest to the leaseholder at a higher value after they have moved in, or by selling it to a third party without informing the leaseholder. That is a critical point: if a freeholder wishes to sell a leasehold flat, the leaseholder has the right of first refusal, but that right does not extend to those in leasehold houses.
Those practices are not illegal, but it seems to me, and to the Secretary of State, to be one of those cases where there is a gulf between the letter of the law and our sense of what is right. Some of the cases that we have seen in the media and heard about today have highlighted some truly appalling behaviour. The Secretary of State and I have been looking closely at the issues raised in recent weeks and we are both absolutely determined to stamp out unfair, unjust and unacceptable abuse of the leasehold system.
A number of references have been made to Taylor Wimpey’s announcement that it will address some of our concerns about its use of leasehold. I am keen to hear more about what it plans to do, not just to stop such practices in the future, but to help homeowners who are currently stuck with ground rents rising much faster than inflation. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made that point powerfully. The leaseholder does not have to be very far into the lease in order to be stuck with that problem, which relates not necessarily to their actual payments at that point in time, but to their ability either to extend the lease or to sell the property to someone else.

Justin Madders: It is welcome that this practice is not going to continue, but my constituents are anxious to know what the Government can do to deal with the onerous conditions that exist in leases already.

Gavin Barwell: I do not have an answer for the hon. Gentleman today, but I assure him that the Secretary of State and I are looking into this issue. We are very clear that it is not just a matter of stopping this practice; we must also address the situation of hard-working people who believe that they have bought their home, but who may find themselves unable to sell that home further down the line. I give the hon. Gentleman the clear assurance that we are looking at the issue.

Peter Bottomley: May I ask the Minister to consult his officials and others on whether there is scope for declaring such a condition to be an unfair term and having it written out?

Gavin Barwell: There are a number of different ways in which the issue can be addressed. It is a difficult issue, because although the clear mood in the House is that the practice is unfair, it none the less interacts with the property rights of the freeholder, and those rights have some protection under the European convention on human rights. We need to think about the right way to address the problem. I will certainly reflect on the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made, and other suggestions have been made during the debate.
We should not be under any illusions. The problem does not just concern one company; a number of our larger developers are involved in it. They would do well  to remember that they are building homes for people to live in, not investment vehicles for financial institutions. Except in a very few exceptional circumstances, I cannot think of any good reason for houses to be built on a leasehold basis. If the industry does not put a stop to the practice and help existing homeowners, we will look to see what Government can do.
I turn to ground rents. Historically, ground rents were set at around one thousandth of the lease value, sometimes increasing every 25 or 33 years. They existed only to create a contract between the freeholder and the leaseholder. However, in recent years, ground rent levels for new leases have increased, as has the frequency of increases. Research by Direct Line suggested that the average ground rent is now £371 for new builds and £327 for older properties.
My immediate concern is the level and frequency of increases in ground rents. We have heard today about one developer selling a lease with a ground rent starting at just under £300 in 2011 and doubling each decade for 50 years, so that by 2061 the annual cost will reach almost £9,500. The purchaser was not made aware of the escalation by their solicitor, who was recommended by the developer. The purchaser is now unable to sell the property, and the cost of extending the lease or buying the freehold is prohibitive.
Of course, there is a degree of caveat emptor when we buy a new house, but we all know that our housing market is a seller’s market at the moment and the advantage lies firmly with the developer. Just because they can sell desperate people something does not mean that they should be doing so. Institutional and other investors increasingly see ground rents as an alternative to equities and bonds, but leaseholders see no return or value in ground rents, especially when they can rise to onerous levels. Obviously, Members on both sides of the House welcome institutional investment into our housing market, but I would much rather institutional investors put their money into productive projects instead of just hoovering up ground rents because they are seen as a safe bet. Both this House and the Government want to hear more from the developers about what they are going to do to put the situation right.
I turn briefly to commonhold, although Members will probably be aware that the Ministry of Justice is the lead Department for this matter. Commonhold was intended to be a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership. As we heard from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, it was introduced by the last Labour Government in 2002 with good intentions, but it has had very limited take-up. There are several explanations as to why. Developers have not favoured the model, and leaseholders have found it a complicated process. Commonhold can be created only where all the owners of the land in question agree to its creation, so it is for developers to decide whether to build commonhold, or for everyone with a shared interest in an existing block to agree to convert to commonhold and to agree their commonhold community statement.
I know that several Members have pressed strongly for commonhold and continue to do so, arguing that it is a better alternative to leasehold arrangements. Commonhold is one way forward in considering improvements for leaseholders, but we also need to look at what we can do to change the existing system. There have been calls for responsibility for commonhold to be  transferred from the Ministry of Justice to my Department. That would require a machinery of government change, and it has been agreed with Ministers that we will have a look at that in the new year.
I hope I have made it clear that the Government accept that there is a lot to do in this area. If the House will forgive me, I would like to say a few words about the things we have already done to improve matters and to ensure that there is easy access to remedies when things go wrong. In the Housing and Planning Act 2016, we introduced two important measures to help leaseholders to exercise their rights and to ensure that they are not ripped off by unscrupulous landlords. Members will probably be familiar with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which allows a tenants association made up of “qualifying tenants” to seek statutory recognition. Such recognition provides the tenants association with additional rights over and above those enjoyed by individual leaseholders, including, crucially, the right to be consulted about the appointment of managing agents, to be notified of works proposed by the landlord and to receive copies of estimates.

Ruth Cadbury: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out the right to be consulted under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Does that extend to the right to have a veto?

Gavin Barwell: The 2016 Act does not give a right to veto, but it gives improved powers to residents associations. Groups have had some difficulties in exercising those powers. If the hon. Lady will give me a second, I will try to explain what we seek to achieve.
Section 130 of the 2016 Act will make a big difference to residents associations, which are finding it difficult to obtain the number of members needed to help them to apply for statutory recognition and the additional rights that that brings. It will do so by requiring a landlord to supply to the secretary of a residents association information that would allow contact to be made with absent leaseholders for the purposes of increasing the association’s membership and therefore its likelihood of achieving recognition.
I turn to another important aspect of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which concerns a landlord’s recovery of litigation costs from leaseholders as administrative charges, which the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse raised. He gave a pretty horrific example from his constituency of how that is being abused in a particular case. At present, where a lease allows a landlord to recover the costs of legal proceedings through the service charge, a court or tribunal can decide to restrict the amount that can be recovered in that way. Courts or tribunals do not have similar powers where recovery of the costs of proceedings as an administration charge is permitted by the lease.

Jim Fitzpatrick: indicated assent.

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Gentleman is nodding; that is the situation in the case that he mentioned. That can lead to unfairness, because the leaseholder will have no choice but to pay the costs of proceedings as an administration charge, regardless of the proceedings. That discourages leaseholders from exercising their rights to challenge the amount of a service charge, particularly  as the landlord’s costs in the proceedings could well exceed the amount that is being disputed. The commencement planned early in the new year of section 131 of the Housing and Planning Act will enable the tribunal or court to consider, on application by the leaseholder, whether it is reasonable for a landlord to recover all or part of those costs.
The complicated nature of leasehold can make it challenging for people to ensure that they follow the correct legal procedures. To help leaseholders to navigate through the system, the Government provide access to free, independent legal advice and information through the leasehold advisory service, or LEASE, as it is known. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West referred to it in his speech. Last year, Government provided LEASE with more than £1 million of funding, and 850,000 people across the country benefited from free advice.

Siobhain McDonagh: May I, through the Minister, thank LEASE for all the work that it does to help my constituents, and for always being willing to attend residents’ meetings to give advice when people feel all at sea about this complicated area?

Gavin Barwell: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is good that people are paying tribute to LEASE for the important work that it does, and which I know is very much valued by people right across the country.
I want to reassure the House that the Government remain committed to ensuring leaseholders have the best professional advice available to them. Given its increasingly important role, I want to make sure that LEASE is properly equipped to offer help to everybody who needs it. Particularly in light of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West, we will look again at how it works, its funding model and its membership.
In conclusion, this well-informed debate has raised important issues affecting millions of people in this country. We take all the issues raised very seriously, as I hope has been indicated by the tone of my speech. We have a strong interest in making sure that the system works as effectively as possible, and we are looking at suggestions for alternative systems, but this issue clearly needs attention. The motion states that the House “has considered” this issue, and I want to reassure my hon. Friend that it will be considered by the Government and that we will come back in the new year with proposals about how to tackle it.

Jim Fitzpatrick: This has been an important debate. We have had fewer contributions than we expected when we put in a bid for this space at the Backbench   Business Committee, but it is reassuring that so many colleagues have come into the Chamber to listen to the Minister’s winding-up speech. They recognise that this is an important issue, and they therefore wanted to hear what he had to say. Perhaps that will reassure him about his popularity: he did not realise it was quite as widespread as it is.
The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) comprehensively exposed the abuses and he named names. He said this goes “beyond sleaze”. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said this is the PPI scandal of the property sector. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) talked about the unfairness in the system. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), quoted the Daily Mail. She said it is not her usual read, but even the Daily Mail gets some things right occasionally, which is reassuring. She gave many examples of poor, shoddy and criminal practices, and on behalf of the official Opposition she made several commitments on leasehold and commonhold. We heard interventions from the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) and for Bolton West (Chris Green), and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who gave examples of problems in their constituencies. I thank the Minister for his response, including his declaration that he is uncomfortable with the current situation. He said that there is
“a gulf between the letter of the law and…what is right”.
He indicated that he will look at this issue in the new year and do something about it, and we welcome the promises he has made on behalf of himself and of the Secretary of State.
The all-party group will continue to campaign on this issue. We look forward to engaging with the Minister and his civil servants, as we have during the past year. We intend to engage with the Government not only to examine and address the abuses and anomalies in the system, but to put the position straight. On behalf of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Worthing West and I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all colleagues, as well as all the staff of the House, a very happy Christmas and a decent break. We look forward to 2017, when leasehold and commonhold will be back on the agenda.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you, and may I return the compliment of the hon. Gentleman and the House by wishing everybody a very happy Christmas and a good new year?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered leasehold and commonhold reform.

Christmas Adjournment

Bob Blackman: I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
I rise to speak on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. Unaccountably, I must apologise for the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who is unable to be with us this afternoon; he is no doubt very active in his constituency, regaling his constituents with festive wishes.
The theme of my introduction is thinking about those who are less fortunate than we are. First and foremost, I want to place on the record what I believe is the view of the whole House in expressing our horror and revulsion at the events at the Berlin Christmas market. Our thoughts are not only with those who are fighting for their lives, but with the relatives of those who have sadly lost their lives. It just shows what can happen and the horrors that can ensue at a simple Christmas market where law-abiding people are going about their business. We do not yet know who was responsible or what their motives were. However, our sympathies are with the relatives of those who have lost their lives and equally with those who have been severely injured.
Secondly, let us express our thoughts, as a whole House, for the people of Aleppo, who are in a parlous condition at the hands of a brutal dictator, and a brutal army that is basically eliminating anyone and everyone that stands in its way. I trust that there will be a resolution of this terrible conflict in the new year, and that people will be able to return to their homes in peace and harmony.
Thirdly, this is the first Christmas that Jo Cox’s family will experience without her. Members on both sides of the House have been touched by the brutal murder of a colleague who was just doing her job on behalf of her constituents. The best thing we can all do—even if we are not used to downloading tracks—is to download her single and help to make it the No. 1 for Christmas. That would be a fitting tribute for a late colleague whom we all mourn.
I want to move on to another set of people who are far less fortunate than we are—the homeless and rough sleepers. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know all too well that my Homelessness Reduction Bill is making its way through Parliament. I am delighted to say that it has all-party support. It had an unopposed Second Reading on 28 October, and we have pursued the Bill in Committee, where I am pleased to say that we are more than halfway through its 13 clauses. I am told that it is the longest ever private Member’s Bill, and it will probably end up as the most expensive for the Government to fund.
Equally, the Bill is very important. The number of people who are homeless in this country is a disgrace, and the number of people who will sleep rough tonight is a disgrace. We owe it to them to make sure that we deliver a radical solution. First and foremost, that is about increasing the supply of housing so that people can have a decent roof over their head, but it is also about transforming local authorities to make sure that they look at the reasons why people are homeless and provide help and assistance at first hand.
I want to thank some of the people involved. I place on the record my thanks to Crisis, St Mungo’s and Shelter for all the work they do to assist people who are homeless at this time of year. I also thank them for giving me tremendous support in producing the Bill, together with the National Landlords Association, which has also given me exceptional assistance.

Gareth Thomas: Given that it is Christmas and that the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of housing, will he take this opportunity to join me in praising Harrow Council for beginning to build council houses—for the first time in 28 years, there will be new council homes in Harrow—which is surely a key part of tackling the housing crisis that affects both our constituencies?

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for raising that issue. It is important that affordable housing is developed right across London and right across the country. To me, the form of tenure does not matter too much; what matters most is that housing is provided for people at a price they can afford. It is good to see Harrow Council doing something right under Labour control. That is very rare—I have a whole catalogue of its errors. But in the spirit of Christmas, let us thank the council.
May I also place on the record my concern and that of more than 216 Members of Parliament about the plight of Equitable Life policyholders? It is a long-running scandal. Although the Government have now closed the compensation scheme to new applicants, the issue is far from over. The Government rightly provided £1.5 billion in compensation to people who suffered from the scam, but the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), made it clear that the total sum owed to those people—as a result of saving their money, as was their right, for a reasonable retirement—was £4.3 billion. More than 1 million people have received only 22% of the compensation they are due. A great deal of money still needs to be found to compensate those applicants. That is without dealing with the most frail and vulnerable—those with pre-’92 trapped annuities, who deserve help on compassionate grounds. I am glad that the new Economic Secretary has agreed to meet a cross-party delegation in the new year to discuss the next steps.

Bob Stewart: The Equitable Life policyholders are getting older. It matters that we get this sorted.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Quite clearly, in the not too distant future large numbers of those affected will want to use their pension for the comfortable life they thought they were saving for and have literally been robbed of.
This year, we have resuscitated the all-party parliamentary group on Romania. I particularly want to raise the plight of Alexander Adamescu, a journalist from Romania —originally from Germany—who is resident in the UK and is under threat from a European arrest warrant for raising issues that are slightly controversial in Romania but in this country would not be an issue. That raises  specific concerns about the relationship between Britain and Romania, and about how the European arrest warrant is used.
I also want to raise the plight of 1.5 million people displaced in Azerbaijan from the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The conflict there has been going on for far too long. It is a forgotten conflict, and unfortunately the position with Armenia, Russia and allies has not helped the overall situation. This summer, the all-party parliamentary group on Azerbaijan went to see one of the camps that has been set up for those people. They are suffering very greatly through no fault of their own. It is time that human rights and shared values were restored to that part of the world.
There is unfinished business in Parliament on two other issues that I will raise briefly. First, we have now gone a year since the expiry of the tobacco control plan that the Government implemented. We have been waiting a year for the new plan. We have been promised on frequent occasions that it would be published soon. On today’s Order Paper I see no progress on it, and I do not think the issue was aired at Health questions. It is obviously important that the Government publish the new tobacco control plan early in the new year, with far-reaching targets, so that we can set out our stall to make sure that the United Kingdom becomes a smoke-free country. It is important that the plan is set out, because without it we run the risk of going backwards on all the wonderful things that have been achieved over the past five years.
Equally, on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus I want to raise the fact that the Government have promised on several occasions to publish the consultation document on ridding ourselves of the unnecessary, ill-thought-out and divisive caste legislation. That consultation was promised by the end of the year. Today is the last day this year that we will meet in Parliament, and there has been no notification to Parliament about the publication of that consultation document. I trust that we will see the document before the end of the year, but Parliament should see it and it should be announced in Parliament before it is released to the public.

Keith Vaz: May I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all his work on behalf of the Hindu community, not just in Harrow but throughout the country? He and I compete as to the number of British Hindus in our constituencies, although I probably just beat him in Leicester. Does he agree that it is important that we have a debate on that document once it is published? It is not sufficient just to publish and rush it through the House. A proper debate involving the diaspora would be very helpful.

Bob Blackman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. I have asked at the last two Women and Equalities questions for the publication of the consultation and asked at business questions for a statement to the House. We could have that debate and Members from all parties and with all interests could register their point of view. Sadly, that has yet to be the case. It is important that we have the debate before the consultation starts, so that it can frame the consultation rather than ending up responding to the document.
I will raise a couple more issues of significance before I conclude my opening speech. The first is the problems that I am sure Members in all parts of the House are experiencing with regard to the issuing of visas for weddings, religious ceremonies and educational or other particular purposes. Visas are being rejected on grounds that I consider spurious. That causes immense difficulties for people coming for religious functions, weddings and in particular funerals, where things are done at the last minute. Applications from India, Pakistan, Iran and Sri Lanka seem to be singled out in an unfair manner and are not treated properly.
I will continue to work in the new year for a two-year visitor visa to be issued for Indian citizens in the same way as the Government agreed for Chinese citizens. I have nothing against Chinese people wanting to visit—that is wonderful—but huge numbers of Indians want to come here and visit too, and I see no reason why they should suffer unfair discrimination when so many relatives are here and people want to visit and to use this country appropriately.
Local transport services are suffering. This may be a theme of other speeches in this debate. We are looking forward to Harrow-on-the-Hill station in the constituency of my honourable neighbour the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) being made step-free. I am looking forward to Stanmore station becoming step-free in the same timeframe. I trust that the solution that has been identified will go forward and will be appropriate.
The one local health issue that I want to raise is that we are seeing the rebuilding of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in my constituency. That is not before time. I and my predecessors have struggled to achieve that and I am delighted that it is finally happening and that we will see the development of a first-rate national hospital that suits the brilliant work that the doctors and nurses do.
I could raise a range of other issues, but I know that a huge number of colleagues are keen to update the House on what they think matters before we rise for the Adjournment. I look forward to the response of my good friend the Deputy Leader of the House to the debate in time-honoured fashion. I have no doubt that it will be appropriately challenging for him, but I know that he will respond and that colleagues will have suitable matters to raise.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you, the Speaker, your fellow Deputy Speakers, the whole House, our colleagues, the staff and the people who keep us safe a very merry Christmas and a happy new year that I trust will be peaceful, prosperous and healthy. On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I open the debate and look forward to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: If hon. Members take up to eight minutes, everyone will—[Interruption.] It is no use moaning about it. If you want to take extra and knock someone else out, that is up to yourselves. I am only trying to be helpful. In the Christmas spirit, let us all treat each other with equality.

Mary Glindon: I would like to add to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) at the beginning of his speech about the sad incident in Germany, especially in relation to the memory of our dear friend Jo Cox.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), a fellow member of the Drugs, Alcohol and Justice parliamentary group, asked on the day of the summer Adjournment:
“Will the Leader of the House send out a search party to find the updated Drugs Strategy, as it has gone missing in Government?”—[Official Report, 21 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 984.]
The policy is still awaited, and unless we have an unexpected delivery from Father Christmas, it will not be seen in the coming months.
In September, I suggested that a debate was desperately needed on drugs policy, following a series of related reports. The Health Committee’s report on public health warned that
“cuts to public health are a false economy”
and expressed concern that drug and alcohol services “can get missed.” Then came an update from the Office for National Statistics showing drugs deaths at record levels; my area, the north-east of England, was the highest again. At the same time, Public Health England and the Local Government Association published their detailed investigation into drug deaths. This month, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has added its investigation.
Furthermore, we have seen Public Health England’s “Evidence Review of the Public Health Burden of Alcohol and the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Alcohol Control Policies”, and the Department of Work and Pensions has finally released Dame Carol Black’s review of the effects of drug and alcohol addiction on employment outcomes. All this weight of expert opinion and evidence recommends that we prioritise drug and alcohol treatment. I very much hope that the Government heed the evidence and recommendations from all these reports and provide a drugs strategy and an alcohol strategy with the resources required to fulfil their objectives.
As Karen Tyrell, a regular contributor to the drugs, alcohol and justice group Addaction, said:
“We simply can’t allow another year to go by and greet further deaths with another statement of concern.”
Two other parliamentary groups to which I belong, the FBU parliamentary group and the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, have raised the issue of school sprinklers, for which guidance is being revised. I am in favour of clear, concise guidance, but I am not in favour of children possibly losing their schools, or even their lives, for the sake of losing a few lines of text. We cannot prioritise brevity over safety. I hope that in the new year, Education Ministers will reconsider and restore the expectation that sprinklers will be installed in new school buildings. Surely, if any change must be made it would be better to replace the word “expectation” with a firm duty to install sprinklers.
Finally, I am dismayed and disappointed that the Government have allowed Spanish-owned Scottish Power to take huge concessions from the UK taxpayer yet award the majority of its fabrication contracts to Spanish nationally owned yards and yards in the middle east.  Only 200 UK jobs will be created in Northern Ireland under the contract to build jackets for the East Anglia One offshore wind farm project.
It very worrying that Government officials omitted to stipulate reference to UK content in the subsidy documents—shame on our Government and shame on Scottish Power! A portion of those jobs would have been lifeblood for the OGN yard in my constituency, which at the height of its contracts two years ago supported 2,000 jobs. As jobs have dried up, the yard has just a handful of people to maintain it. I must praise Dennis Clark of OGN for his past success in bringing good jobs to North Tyneside and for his solid commitment to our region. Our fight will go on to ensure our yards in Tyneside have healthy order books in future.
I wish everyone who works in the House a very happy Christmas and, in particular, the most precious gift of all: good health throughout 2017.

Theresa Villiers: I would like to spread some Christmas cheer by talking about the tax system, but first I would like to join others in wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, all right hon. and hon. Members and all staff of the House well for the Christmas period.
I want to detain the House briefly to talk about HMRC’s Making Tax Digital programme, an important issue I think we should reflect on over the Christmas period. Before doing so, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a recipient of rental income from property.
Digitisation of the tax system—the aim of the MTD programme—is worth while, but I have genuine concerns about the proposals as they currently stand. I have been contacted by a number of constituents, including Mr Nick Danan, whose email prompted me to make this speech today. A key issue is the proposed obligation, under the programme, to send a quarterly report to the tax authorities. This is to be accompanied by so-called real-time reporting of transactions, although exactly what that will involve in practice is not yet clear.
At the moment, the obligation is planned to be imposed on all self-employed people, small businesses and buy-to-let landlords with an income or turnover above £10,000. A relatively recent concession by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is that implementation will be deferred for a year for unincorporated businesses with a turnover over the £10,000 threshold and below unspecified new thresholds. It is very welcome that HMRC has been listening and that it has made that move, but it does not address all the concerns my constituents have with the proposals.
I welcomed the chance to meet the Federation of Small Businesses when it visited Parliament on 29 November to present a report it had commissioned on the Making Tax Digital programme and to explain the changes it believes ought to be made to the programme before it is put into legislation next year. Yesterday, I met Louise McMullan and Alan Lean of Equity to talk about the problems their members in the entertainment industry would have with the programme. The FSB estimates that the current proposals will cost businesses on average £2,770 a year in addition to the £3,600 they already spend on help and advice with the tax system. Such figures are  always challengeable and debatable, but I am worried about imposing this new cost on entrepreneurs who are such a fundamental part of economic success.
Treasury Ministers are very clear that they expect their MTD project to save money for businesses, but I find that hard to reconcile with real time transaction reporting and quarterly updates. I am deliberately choosing not to call them quarterly tax returns, since Ministers are very clear that these updates will not be the same as a traditional annual tax return. However, whether they are updates, reports or returns, it seems inevitable that they will cost businesses time and money to prepare.
Now I fully accept that HMRC intends to try to ensure that compiling quarterly reports is a simple process that does not need professional advice. The problem is that the legal, financial and reputational risks of getting reports to HMRC wrong are so serious that many or most small businesses, self-employed people and landlords affected will probably ask their professional advisers to compile these new quarterly reports in the same way they do an annual tax return. That would involve significant costs. As a Government and as a party, we have a strong commitment to try to minimise the cost of tax and regulation for business, and I feel that, as it currently stands, the Making Tax Digital programme is hard to reconcile with that commitment.
I bear in mind the fact that we are already asking business, large and small, to take on significant responsibilities on a range of social, economic and environmental goals, including complex rules on employment protection, payroll, VAT, auto-enrolment for pensions, action on climate change and so forth: the list is a long one. Those are important objectives that the House should support, but they tend to come with obligations for people just trying to get by and make an honest living.
When this measure comes before us in the Finance Bill next year, we should think very carefully before we impose further burdens on people who are so crucial to job creation and general economic success. We will need to ask ourselves two questions: are these burdens necessary and proportionate; and can anything further be done to mitigate them? We should bear in mind that the £10,000 threshold will bring many millions of people within the scope of these new reporting requirements, including many of our constituents. I hope that before Ministers bring this legislation forward next year, they listen carefully to the responses to the consultation and representations made by organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the FSB and Equity.
On the particular issue of the threshold, many feel that £10,000 is too low. There is a concern that it is disproportionate to impose these new burdens on microbusinesses or very small-scale buy-to-let landlords. I hope Ministers will consider an increase to align the MTD reporting threshold, for example, with the VAT threshold, which is currently around £83,000. After all, VAT-rated businesses already deal with regular reporting requirements, so the impact of this new scheme would be less disruptive for them. Making these new reporting obligations voluntary for businesses under the VAT threshold would seem a reasonable way forward. HMRC clearly believes its system will be successful and easy to use, so it should not shy away from a voluntary approach. If the system is to be as user-friendly as it believes it  will, people will want to use it and will not need to be compelled to do so. That approach is taken in Australia, for example.
The Chairman of the Treasury Committee pointed out the concern in his letter to the Chancellor in September. He said that the new requirements for digital recordkeeping and reporting go further than simply entering a handful of totals into an online return. In his letter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) described what was required as
“tantamount to prescription by HMRC, for the first time, of a particular form in which accounting records must be maintained.”
I thus hope that one key thing we will hear from Ministers when they return here next year is clarity on exactly what quarterly real-time reporting will be required by MTD. I hope that the Government will consider my constituent’s proposal that it should not go beyond a simple statement of income on expenditure.
HMRC’s commitment to free digital tools for the smallest businesses to help them with this new approach is welcome, but so far we have had only rather limited information on what that software will be and for how long it will remain free to use. A point raised with me by Equity yesterday is that many of its members are particularly concerned about whether the free software will enable them to report overseas earnings. I hope that we will hear from Ministers next year about their confidence in the security of HMRC systems. People will be asked to accommodate a vast amount of data, far more than at present, and I think people providing those data will want to be confident that HMRC’s computer systems are stable and resilient enough to hold this vast increase.
I also hope that Ministers will be able to reassure us about how the new reporting obligations will compare with universal credit monthly reports. Many in the self-employed sector will receive universal credit and be subject to the Making Tax Digital obligations: avoiding unnecessary duplication would be very helpful. Perhaps most important of all, a longer implementation period with extensive piloting would really help to ease the transition to a genuinely digital tax system. It also makes sense to start with the larger businesses, which are probably better able to cope, rather than, as HMRC currently proposes, starting with the smallest.
The Government were very sensible to pilot the new universal credit system extensively and introduce it gradually over a period of years. Making Tax Digital will be a truly massive IT project, and taking time to get it right is both justifiable and sensible, even if that postpones some of the advantages for the Government. I fear that if HMRC presses ahead with MTD in its current form, that will require a very significant change for thousands of self-employed people who may not run digital accounts, or, in some cases, may not even use computers very much.
Of course there are clear advantages in moving such people towards a more systematic approach to their tax and accounts and away from the so-called shoebox model approach, but if HMRC is to achieve behaviour change of that magnitude, it will take some time. There can be little doubt that millions of people are due to face a radical change in how they deal with their tax affairs, and that they do not yet have a clue about what is coming down the track towards them. Allowing enough time to enable the delivery of the programme to run smoothly would be a wise choice on the Government’s part.
I believe that most people should welcome and support the goal of a digitised tax system. I have no doubt that a number of elements of HMRC’s Making Tax Digital programme will make the tax system easier to use, help to reduce errors, strengthen the tax base and support the public finances. Those are all aims that the House can support, and I certainly support them, but there are still real concerns about the cost impact of the programme on self-employed people, landlords and small businesses. I believe that those problems can be resolved, but, although there is still time to sort them out, there is not a great deal of time.
I am not someone who rushes to highlight potential risks or problems with Government initiatives, but I felt that I ought to raise these concerns on behalf of the many people in my constituency who will be affected. I sincerely hope that Treasury Ministers will consider the points that I have made today as they embark on the final decisions that are needed on Making Tax Digital before presenting the Finance Bill 2017 to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The good news is that we have had two no-shows, which will allow Members to speak for up to 10 minutes. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) must have known that already, given the length of time for which she spoke—but not to worry.

Martyn Day: You will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will not require the full 10 minutes.
It is a pleasure to take part in this wide-ranging and popular general debate, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to do so.
Among the numerous issues to have graced my casework over recent months—perhaps one of the more interesting —is the World Health Organisation Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, sometimes referred to as the Illicit Trade Protocol, or ITP. As many Members will know, the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is the world’s first and only public health treaty. However, the problem of illicit tobacco was held to be so severe that a new, subsidiary treaty under the FCTC was required, namely the ITP. It was concluded in 2012, and currently covers 24 state parties plus the European Union. Forty parties are required for the ITP to come into force. It was signed by the United Kingdom Government three years ago, but so far it has not been ratified by the UK. In recent weeks, I have raised this subject a number of times through parliamentary questions, both oral and written. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for her helpful and constructive answers, which I received yesterday.
Those who have raised this important issue with me feel that the UK Government are setting a poor example and dragging their feet on ratification of the protocol on illicit tobacco and that as a consequence they are threatening public health and costing the Treasury millions of pounds in lost revenue. The latest HMRC figures for 2015-16 estimate that the UK illicit market share for cigarettes is 13% and for hand-rolling tobacco 32%. The tobacco tax gap for this period was estimated to be  £2.4 billion. Although that represents a significant improvement over the last decade or so, the issue remains a key public health concern. I say that not because illicit tobacco is necessarily more harmful than that on sale in shops, but rather because it bypasses tobacco control measures designed to increase prices and prevent tobacco sales to children.
As I have mentioned, I hope that the parliamentary questions and answers go some way towards addressing the concerns over the Government’s failure to act on the ITP. I look forward to the text of the protocol being laid before Parliament as a Command Paper, and would be grateful to Ministers if we could have an indication of a likely timescale for that.
I press the point because I believe that the ITP will genuinely help tackle the illicit trade problem. Among its measures designed to combat the illicit trade is a worldwide tracking and tracing scheme for tobacco products. The ITP explicitly requires Governments to take responsibility for control measures and not to rely on industry self-regulation, which has failed to deliver. This track and trace scheme is intended to prevent the tobacco industry from participating in, or turning a blind eye to, smuggling. The scheme must be independent of the industry if it is to be effective.
Earlier this year, the big tobacco companies sold Codentify, the anti-smuggling track and trace system, to a third party for a token 1 Swiss franc, clearly in an attempt to comply with EU and World Health Organisation rules on independence. However, it has been claimed that the new owner is merely a front company and that the system is still under the effective control of the tobacco firms. If so, this would not fulfil the requirements of the ITP for independence. Some industry insiders have also highlighted that Codentify is ineffective as a track and trace system as it uses a combination of unique encrypted codes along with other codes that are visible and easy to forge. I trust that Ministers will have that on their radar as this issue moves forward.
In conclusion, the protocol to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products is a global solution to a global problem. It is important that we play our full part, and in the spirit of Christmas I welcome the Government’s commitment to ratification. I am, however, impatient and keen to see progress. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, although I will not envy him as he tries to sum up today’s wide-ranging debate.

Simon Burns: At this time of Christmas and good will towards all, it seems a bit churlish to bring to the attention of the House the sad problems my constituents have had over the last three weeks when travelling by rail down from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street to work and back again. About 8,000 to 9,000 of my constituents commute to London to work each day, and others travel down to London and back up to Chelmsford during the day for a variety of other reasons. But we have been struck over the last three weeks by one problem after another that have brought the network to a grinding halt and caused so much disruption and frustration for those travelling.
The fact is that in my part of Essex the line is only two lines—one down to London and one up from London. There is little scope if a train breaks down or  there are problems with the track except to sort the problem out immediately to get the network running again. When a problem occurs, all the trains back up and wait for a solution. If that happens during the rush hour, we can all imagine the frustration and problems, because people want to get to work; they do not want to be late, as it causes problems with their employers, and they have to put up with all of that too.
These problems have happened too much in the recent past. A track crack brought chaos, and a freight train broke down and brought everything to a standstill. Engines pulling commuter trains have broken down, with all the disturbance and problems that that causes.
Things will be considerably better in the future. I give credit to the previous Labour Government and to this Government for the investment that has been poured in to improve and upgrade the track and to replace the overhead cables from Liverpool Street to Chelmsford and beyond to Colchester and Norwich. That is bringing some improvements now, but it will bring considerable improvements when it is finished because we will have fewer faults. However, that is investment that no one ever sees. If we get new carriages, people obviously immediately notice the differences and the improvement on the previous ones. People do not notice track and infrastructure improvement because it is not in their face, but it is going on.
The franchise that was awarded to Abellio Greater Anglia in the summer is extremely good news for my constituents in so far as the commitment is there to replace all the trains with brand-new ones in 2019-20. The current engines and carriages are 30 years old, so it is no wonder that they break down. They are of a different generation and have different technology, which is old and susceptible to faults. When we get brand-new engines, we will see a significant improvement in performance. In addition, a new station will be built just to the north-east of Chelmsford’s city limits near Beaulieu Park, which will help to unclog the congestion in the town that comes from people driving to the station to get their trains to work during the morning rush hour and then driving back in the afternoon and evening. By the mid-2020s, there will be a 5 km loop track to the north of Witham, allowing fast trains to overtake the slower ones, and an increase in capacity on trains to Liverpool Street.
Jam tomorrow is great, but we need more jam today because my constituents are having to put up with too much disruption. Without wanting to rub it in, they pay quite a lot of their taxed income for the pleasure—if that is the right word—of travelling down to London to work, so I want several things. There is considerable engineering work at the moment, particularly at weekends, simply due to investment in upgrading the infrastructure, but I want an end to the Network Rail inefficiencies that lead to engineering work overrunning into the Monday morning rush hour and causing considerable grief. It is totally avoidable with better planning and organisation. In addition, I want service providers to offer more information when there is disruption or a breakdown, so that customers know exactly what the problem is, why they either cannot get on a train or are stuck on a train and, if possible, roughly how long it will take for the problem to be resolved so that they can  continue or start their journey. I am not asking for a lot. Better communication is quite straightforward in this era of social media and other communication systems.
If possible, I would like more work to be done to ensure that the current engines are best maintained to minimise the possibility of breakdowns. I also want fewer freight trains to run during rush hour, when they cause utter chaos if they break down. That is a challenge for now. As I have explained, the challenge for the future is looking good, but there is one thing this Government could do to help the network. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is shortly going to use money from a £450 million fund for trials of digital signalling for the railways, and pilot areas will be needed. Essex County Council and I, along with other hon. Members, are most anxious that one site where this digital signalling is tested should be the Liverpool Street-Chelmsford-Colchester-Ipswich-Norwich line. I urge the Deputy Leader of the House, who will be responding to this debate, to make the Secretary of State for Transport aware, as I have done, of how important it would be and what a signal it would give in terms of confidence in the system if the Department for Transport were prepared to use that line and rail network as part of the trials of digital signalling, because that is yet another investment that will improve rail travel in this country over the coming years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Siobhain McDonagh—and Buster.

Siobhain McDonagh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. By now, hon. Members may have seen my break into the music industry with “National Living Rage”, a Christmas song that I recorded with a number of Labour Members last week. Derided by some, adored by others—my mum—I am delighted that the song has had its desired effect of generating national attention for the serious issue of pay cuts. It has had 40,000 hits on YouTube and been laughed at on everything from “Daily Politics” to Channel 4’s “The Last Leg”, but it has got a serious message out in the public domain by humorous means.
These cuts are being made by some good employers who have made a bad decision when it comes to older, long-standing staff. I want to take a moment to consider the tens of thousands of workers who face a pay cut this Christmas—those families who have to bear the pressure of selling their house or finding another job just to make ends meet. Christmas should be a time of good will to all men and women, but a disappointing roll call of employers are being scrooges this year. Instead of delivering presents, they are serving their loyal, long-standing staff with pay cuts and notices. From B&Q to Marks & Spencer, 2 Sisters Food Group, Waitrose, Caffè Nero and EAT, good employers are getting it wrong, using the introduction of a higher statutory minimum wage as an opportunity to cut total staff pay.
No one in this House should be under any illusion that this is some sort of niche issue—on the contrary, it is affecting residents in every constituency across the country. It is estimated that about 11,000 of the iconic  high-street retailer Marks & Spencer’s total workforce of 83,000 would be negatively impacted in some way by pay cuts—that is 13% of the workforce adversely affected, almost all of whom are on pre-2002 contracts. Some 2,700 workers will lose more than £1,000 a year, and 700 will lose more than £2,000 a year. Approximately more than half a million people in the retail, restaurant and food manufacturing industries will receive a pay cut—that is about 13% of the total number of workers in those industries. Many of the companies involved are high-street names with historically good reputations, but they have made some terrible errors of judgment. It is not too late for them to change their minds, and I am asking all of them to reverse their decisions to cut staff pay at their January board meetings. Should those companies not change their minds, I hope the Government will step in and salvage their policy for all workers.
I have seen evidence that proves that many other companies are planning the same sort of pay cuts in the coming year. The chair of John Lewis, Sir Charlie Mayfield, stated in a private meeting earlier this year his intention to review the partnership’s “historic premium pay arrangements”, which he said were not in keeping with John Lewis’s competitors. We know what the John Lewis Partnership’s competitors are doing, so clearly the “review” of “legacy payments” is just a euphemism for the cutting of pay for long-standing staff. We have already seen clear evidence of that in Waitrose’s decision earlier this year to take away paid breaks from new and existing staff. The House will appreciate my frustration when Sir Charlie emailed me to say that he no longer had any intention of meeting me today. Buster, the boxer from John Lewis’s heart-warming Christmas ad, and I are very sad not to have the opportunity to discuss John Lewis’s plans for pay cuts. Can we assume that the decision not to meet me is an admission of guilt on its part? I guess that Buster and I will not know for sure until those pay cuts are announced in the coming year.
If I am wrong about John Lewis, I will happily return to this House and publicly apologise. I will be delighted to be wrong about John Lewis—it is a great British business that got great through great customer service from well-treated staff, the sort of people whom the Prime Minister describes as those giving their best and putting in the effort. I am happy to apologise if I am wrong and I reiterate to Sir Charlie that I would be happy to meet him and discuss this important issue wherever and whenever he likes.
Having concentrated on unscrupulous employment practices, I know that corporate executives are watching every move in Parliament so, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to deliver a message to all those company CEOs and chairmen of boards. The campaign to ensure that no one in this country loses money as a result of the national living wage will continue into the new year, until every worker gets the pay that they so richly deserve. My colleagues and I will be writing to chairmen this week to ask for their contract changes to be reversed at the January board meetings.
I want to use these last few minutes to express my deep concern for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan and in this country.

Margaret Ferrier: As vice-chair of the all-party group on the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, I want to say that we  all stand in solidarity with them wherever they are in the world. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should always speak out against religious persecution, wherever it occurs and whoever it falls on?

Siobhain McDonagh: I agree with the hon. Lady: whatever the religion and wherever people are, we must stand up for religious tolerance.
There have been two worrying developments overseas. The first was a raid in Rabwah, where 16 fully armed policemen and 12 plain-clothed officers from three police vehicles forced entry into an Ahmadi office without a warrant, wounding and arresting four innocent Ahmadi men. The raid was unlawful and most likely ordered by the highest ranking officials in the Punjab province.
The second was the destruction of the historic Chakwal mosque, which was attacked by more than 1,000 people a week ago. Stones were pelted and the property was burnt to
“bring it under the influence of Islam.”
I need not remind hon. Members that Ahmadis are not allowed to define themselves as Muslim in Pakistan. I hope that all hon. Members will stand together to express their solidarity with the Ahmadi Muslim community and I ask the Foreign Secretary to do all he can to stand with the oppressed and persecuted Ahmadi people.
Finally, I wish all my constituents in Mitcham and Morden, all hon. Members and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a very merry Christmas and a peaceful new year.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: This is the season of good will—let us see whether we can change that, shall we?
What I am going to relate to Members is important to anybody in this House and anywhere else. It is about one part of rural Somerset—as most Members know, my constituency is there—where there is a determined effort to hijack public opinion and, I would say, horribly to kill off local democracy. It is a tale of gerrymandering, sharp practice and strong suspicions of corruption. It concerns the plan to merge West Somerset Council with one of its neighbours, Taunton Deane, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is not here. It is a merger most foul, and, as in most blood-curdling stories, the real motive is money.
Having won the House’s attention, I shall give Members the background to this sorry saga. West Somerset District Council is the smallest authority in England with a population of 35,000. It is a very beautiful part of the world and includes most of Exmoor. Unfortunately, the local council is perilously close to going bankrupt, partly because there are not enough people to pay the bills. For years the council has struggled to make ends meet and unfortunately it has failed. Three years ago it was lured—rather like a prostitute into a strange house—into a deal with Taunton Deane. For reasons that I do not completely understand, the leadership would not consider taking help from any other neighbour, including its nearest neighbour, Sedgemoor, which happens to be one of the best run councils in the United Kingdom. It has healthy finances and would have helped sort out West Somerset’s problems without neutering that council. But the old guard preferred to do a deal with Taunton. I do not know why.
Taunton Deane was—and still is—desperately short of money. Why on earth would it want to bail out a bankrupt neighbour when it is heading towards bankruptcy itself? Two failing councils together make a successful council? You do the maths. I believe that Taunton wants to get its greedy hands on the business rates that will ultimately come from Hinkley C nuclear power station. [Interruption.] I heard somebody say “Ah!” from a sedentary position. The House is getting the plot. My little council may be on the verge of bankruptcy today, but in 20 years when Hinkley comes on line and produces electricity, it will become seriously rich. There is nothing like the prospect of gold, as Judas would say, to bring out the green streak in neighbouring town halls.
Taunton has always craved a share of the action. It is consumed with envy. When the plans for developing Hinkley were submitted, Taunton Deane put in a formal objection. A bit of an irony, I know. It did so out of jealousy and on the orders of its leader. He is a builder by trade and a sharp and interesting operator. John Williams is his name. He looks a little like Santa Claus, but please do not be fooled in this time of good will. He is more like Rudolph who has been garrotted, but I cannot see him saying, “Ho, ho, ho.” He rules Taunton Deane with a grip of iron and he likes to get his own way, mainly by foul means, so when West Somerset came begging, he spotted his chance and went for it.
Williams’s henchmen moved in like the mafia—horses’ heads in the bed—took over the local council, pensioned off most of the staff and started running everything from Taunton, not Minehead. Since then West Somerset’s 28 councillors have unfortunately—I say this against myself, as much as anybody—become little more than a glorified talking shop. I am not being rude, but the good people of West Somerset now realise that the levers of power are being manipulated elsewhere. There are those who think Scotland has a problem.
All that would matter less if Taunton Deane were a well-oiled machine, but the truth is quite the opposite. It is led by an autocrat and managed by an absentee. Its chief executive has been off for six months—with a bad back, we think, but we are not entirely sure. She has cost £80,000 in sick pay, and nobody knows what is wrong. The House will be relieved to learn, however, that she is coming back soon after seven months. She is to be phased in in January. What is “phased in”? I should try that with my Whip, who is sitting in her place.
The penny has finally dropped! Penny James and Councillor Williams have a long and undistinguished record for getting everything wrong. They were enthusiastic supporters of Southwest One. I will not bore the House. It is an appalling IT project that cost the taxpayers of Somerset £80 million and saved nothing. Taunton urgently needs to replace its IT equipment, but it does not have anybody who knows what to do with a computer, so for the chance of another expensive disaster, watch this space and my place in the House.
Taunton Deane is known as cock-up valley. That is written all over it. One of the latest occurred a couple of weeks ago. I must tell the House about it; it is fascinating.

Bob Stewart: Oh, go on.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
The planning committee of West Somerset council was meant to be considering a highly controversial building application, but the planning officers in Taunton, forgot—Fidel Castro-style—to inform any of the interested parties. Result: red faces, great anger, expense and—guess what—it had to be pulled. In my opinion West Somerset is trapped in an unfair partnership with an ineffective, overstretched and financially dodgy council. The chances are that there would be only nine or 10 councillors left when the changes come because of the demographics. It would spell the end of local democracy, not something that we want to see.
The plan was sneaked in under the radar, using a new Act of Parliament to get round the involvement of the Boundary Commission. Cunning stuff, as Baldrick would say. The Boundary Commission is an independent body, as the House knows. It always demands a fair referendum to test public opinion when it wants it. It would have gone through the emperor’s maths with a fine-tooth comb and made a fuss if the sums did not add up. However, Emperor Williams decided to push through his plans without bothering to tell Taunton Deane’s councillors precisely how he was going to do it.
In July, Taunton Deane Council approved the merger. That decision has now led to a legal challenge by a number of Taunton Deane’s councillors who insist that they were not told the truth. The legal challenge is powerful and, I can assure the House, is already causing the emperor and his team considerable anxiety. I am not surprised, because this time he has gone too far.
Do not get me wrong: I am not against change and I never have been. Partnerships can work and collaboration between councils is sensible, and maybe there are too many overpaid senior officers and too many people in town halls who do not know what they are doing. But big issues such as these deserve proper and thorough consultation. Instead we are getting a cheapskate confidence trick dreamt up by a cheapskate confidence trickster—trying saying that quickly.
Through my door at the weekend came a questionnaire seeking my opinion, which will then be conveyed to the Government. Oh yeah? Golly! The plan is that money is so tight that something had to be done, so at a stroke, and without consultation, they ruled out the possibility of any partnerships. They are now looking to see how these councillors will work. Basically, there will now be a high-level business transformation document, which presumably is deliberately phrased to convince everyone that the only way is a full-blown merger.
With mergers come costly dreams, such as Southwest One, the multi-million pound IT scheme. You name it, they’ve got it. This time Taunton Deane wants to put services online and trim back the staff, but that will not work because in West Somerset broadband is intermittent —in my house it is under a megabit—or non-existent, so the population do not have computers because they do not work. Pigeons are quicker. My constituents need to be able to talk to real human beings, not robots in Japan.
Unfortunately, the architects of these great schemes never do their homework. The business plan was riddled with financial guesswork, half-truths and downright lies. The document never offered the most sensible solution, which was to go back to the drawing board, talk to neighbouring councils—exactly what the Government told them to do—and find a more imaginative way  forward. That is what I want and what the Government want, but Emperor Williams does not much fancy working with top-flight councils, because he could not cope with it—he is not that bright—so he has done everything in his power to prevent constructive talks taking place. Now he wants a Greater Taunton, a sprawling new authority with no separate identity for West Somerset.
The questionnaire asked me just about everything, from my favourite colour to my inside leg measurement, but at no point have I been invited to provide my name and address, even though it is a consultation in two councils, so anybody could respond. In fact, please write in—you can all take part and it is great fun—but do not opt for the merger in West Somerset and Taunton Deane.
The whole of this is ridiculous. These forms could be filled in by Mickey Mouse or even Emperor Williams. They have set up a new website with similar questions. It is not doing the trick. People are not conned, and we should know that in this House—we have seen Brexit and Trump. But it might not stop Councillor Williams and his mates trying to skew the results by making multiple entries from different computers on his own—yup, it happened before. It is a consultation sham designed to be abused, and it was ordered and approved by a council that claims to be democratic.
No wonder the electors in the Taunton Deane ward of Blackdown last week voted out the Conservative candidate after 42 years—it has always been blue, but no longer. They actually went and got a Liberal Democrat; that is how bad the council is. People in Taunton Deane are sick of the way the council is working, and it is getting worse. It used to be the county town, but its famous market has moved to the far better Bridgwater, the old site is still derelict and ugly, the whole area is overrun with unpopular housing schemes and there seems to be a determination to build for the sake of building.
But guess what? Emperor Williams is a builder. He looks great in a yellow hard hat and reinforced boots, and he is often photographed alongside prominent local developers—I will leave that hanging. They looked like a happy family in their ceremonial Day-Glo regalia. This month, “Brother John” was seen with the bosses of Summerfields, a local housing association, which recently completed Taunton Deane’s brand new Direct Labour headquarters—it sounds almost like something from the other side of the Chamber. It is located on a business park owned by Summerfields—funny, that—but most of the council’s workload is actually in Taunton, another town, so the staff have to go from one place to another to do their work. It is absolute madness. So why was there no reference to the extra cost when these plans were considered? One does not know. Ask Brother John.
A year or so ago, Summerfield applied for permission to build affordable homes just beside the M5—the famous M5. Guess what, Taunton Deane let it slip through. I am told the construction work was subcontracted to a company owned by, guess who, Brother John himself. Such a relationship is a bit too close for comfort, but, guess what, nobody has ever said there is a conflict of interest—they would not get away with it in most places. There is absolutely nothing in Taunton Deane’s constitution that obliges councillors to declare an interest when a subcontract is awarded. That is not good. We need openness in local government—I do not need to tell anybody here that.
I have highlighted these things simply to give the House a sense of perspective about what is going on in my part of Somerset. My constituents will not have the wool pulled over their eyes. They can smell a rat, and they know what one looks like, and I am sure they will reject this half-baked merger scheme. They want to keep their council—and so they should.

Chris Matheson: Should fate ever somehow decree that I end up as a member of a council in Somerset, I shall make it my absolute priority—horses’ heads or no—to stay on the right side of the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger).
This has been a tumultuous year culturally and politically. With the assassination of an ambassador and a further apparent terrorist atrocity yesterday, it seems we are finishing on a stark but familiar low. The attack in Germany drives home to me the fact that, to coin the phrase of the moment, we have more in common with our European partners than divides us. I fear that the current stand-off over Brexit and the forthcoming negotiations will drive us further apart from our neighbours, when these are surely times when those nations committed to the cause of democracy, freedom and pluralism must stick together and find common ground, rather than hunker down in an introspective bunker, focused on the challenges of Brexit while the big global challenges and threats remain.
The main debate in the EU negotiations seems to be one of immigration versus free movement and access to the single market. I am in favour of the free movement of labour; I am just not in favour of the free movement of unemployment and the free movement of exploitation. Over a decade ago, as a trade union official, I saw construction workers being brought in from abroad and used on big construction projects; names such as Staythorpe power station or Lindsey oil refinery spring to mind. Those immigrant workers would be used by the prime and principal subcontractors to drive down wages in a sector where skilled, well-paid jobs provided a good standard of living and were negotiated nationally between the unions and employers, and where the system worked.
All of a sudden, wage rates were falling in a race to the bottom, which even good employers—the majority of employers—were forced to join to stay competitive. The difference was kept by the corporations and their bosses in the form of bigger profits, rather than being shared out among the men and women doing the work. Bogus agencies were set up in eastern Europe, advertising British jobs at below UK agreed rates of pay—again so that the money could be siphoned off from the workers and those at the top could keep a bigger slice for themselves.
It is unsurprising that so many working-class people voted to leave the EU, when that was their most visible personal experience of it, albeit it was not necessarily the EU that was at fault but the system of globalised capitalism we are seeing today. My solution would be simple: retain free movement in a qualified manner. If someone has a job, they can come and work here, but the job must be advertised in the UK and in English, and it must pay accepted UK rates. I suspect that the rest of the EU may soon find itself moving towards such a system anyway.
The Euro-referendum and, it would seem, events elsewhere, have brought into focus another new aspect of the state of politics, exemplified by the word of the year: post-truth. In the UK, there was no better example of that than the red Vote Leave bus, with its siren promise of an extra £350 million a week for the NHS—a promise it took Nigel Farage barely 12 hours to admit was false, on breakfast TV.
Members of the House who associated themselves with that promise have never apologised or faced the appropriate obloquy for their association with it. I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I sought guidance from Mr Speaker and the Clerks as to how I might criticise Members such as the Foreign Secretary for their association with the bus and the claim. I learned that the rules of the House preclude me from calling Members such as the Foreign Secretary deliberately mendacious. Were I allowed to do so, I would, indeed, suggest that these Members were deliberately and wilfully mendacious in the pursuit of short-term political gain—a practice that is known in Cheshire as being a snollygoster. Of course, the rules do preclude me from that, so I will not be making any such allegation.
Post-truth politics is dangerous because it devalues our political system, corrodes the quality of our democracy and diminishes public trust in our institutions. It has a broader effect too—a cultural effect, because as well as undermining honesty and trust and celebrating deceit, it celebrates ignorance and stupidity in saying that learning is not to be valued and has nothing to contribute. So when the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) told Faisal Islam on “Sky News” that he had “had enough of experts”, it was a breathtaking attack on progress, an attack on scientific and cultural learning, a devaluation of the intrinsic importance of the—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You are mentioning Members. Did you give notice that you were going to mention Members in the Chamber?

Chris Matheson: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will bear that in mind and amend my comments suitably as a result.
When Members say that they have had enough of experts, that is an attack on progress—a devaluation of the intrinsic importance of the accumulation of knowledge as a good thing that has benefited, and will continue to benefit, humanity across the ages.
I say this clearly to the House: please reject the dishonesty of post-truth politics but reject also its regressive and reactionary message that ignorance and dishonesty are somehow a good thing. Post-truth did not put a man on the moon or develop the Hubble space telescope, post-truth did not invent the internet or the worldwide web, and post-truth will not find a cure for cancer. If we in this place cannot address an argument with fact, it may be time to reassess whether our views are correct and sustainable.
As we look forward to the new year, I make a further plea to the House to reject the notion that the 52% vote to leave is somehow the will of the people. It is the will of the majority of the people and it must be respected— we must deliver the exit from the EU agreed in the  referendum—but it cannot be portrayed as the will of all the people. The views of the 48% must be taken into account in how we exit the EU; they cannot be ignored or airbrushed away. I fully support and pay tribute to hon. Members on my Front Bench who are trying to bring the country together and make efforts to represent the 100%, because I fear that, in addition to the perils of post-truth politics, we face another threat—one of cataclysmic disunity. The referendum was brought about by this Government to halt long-running rifts over Europe in certain parts of the House, but those rifts have now been transferred to the whole country, and have fed narrow nationalism in certain parts of the country. Narrow, petty nationalism cannot be the solution to any problem that we face in the world today.
I am certainly not imagining a nation where we all agree and everything is fine and dandy, but a basic consensus about how we do politics has been attacked, as exemplified by recent media attacks on High Court judges and their integrity. We are stronger when we stick together. I have never known our country to be so deeply and unpleasantly divided. We have heard so much about putting the “great” back into Great Britain; perhaps now, with all the external threats and challenges we face, it is time to put the “united” back into the United Kingdom.

Jack Lopresti: I wish to address two very important constituency issues: transport infrastructure improvements, and education provision in Filton and Bradley Stoke.
The Metrobus scheme will provide a dedicated bus route from the south of Bristol to the northern fringe of Bristol, including my constituency, in order to provide an alternative to private car journeys. It should carry 600,000 passengers per year, which equates to roughly 820 two-person car journeys a day. It is a key element in encouraging economic growth and unlocking future housing potential. It is a £100 million project funded by the Department for Transport, South Gloucestershire Council and Bristol City Council. I have always been a keen supporter of the scheme and remain so.
However, the Metrobus works have caused major congestion, disruption and delays for the residents of Bradley Stoke and the surrounding areas. For example, one of my constituency team usually has a 10 to 15-minute drive home during the rush hour, but one evening she had a journey that took nearly two hours, most of which was stuck in stationary traffic. As a resident of Almondsbury, with my constituency office in Bradley Stoke, I have experienced and shared the frustration of people stuck in these jams during commuting hours without much evidence at times, it seems, of work actually taking place on the Metrobus route. Constituents have reported to me that, while stuck in their cars in traffic jams, they have seen workmen asleep on the site. The works have taken too long and are over time, and initially there was no understanding or appreciation that people have to get in and out of Bradley Stoke every day to travel to school and work. The project has suffered from a lack of communication by the contractors and the council with locals.
I organised and chaired a public meeting earlier this year to get local people face to face with the contractors, the council and First Bus representatives. A few weeks  ago, I organised a meeting with the Alun Griffiths road contractors, MetroBus, South Gloucestershire Council, including the lead councillor responsible for transport in South Gloucestershire, Councillor Colin Hunt, and local Bradley Stoke town councillors, to try to find a workable solution to the congestion. I also met the Secretary of State for Transport a week or so ago to bring the issue to his attention and ask for his help.
Of course, I understand that major transport infrastructure projects and improvement works will cause disruption and jams occasionally. However, right next door to the congestion is the M4-M5 managed motorway scheme, which was constructed by Balfour Beatty on time and on budget. Often the contractors worked through the night and at all hours. One evening they removed a pedestrian bridge and replaced it that same night. The works were completed with minimum disruption to local residents.
I suggested to the Alun Griffiths contractors that those ought to be the methods that they should aspire to adopt, but I was told that they could not work longer hours due to health and safety considerations. Future transport infrastructure improvements should be done along the lines of the managed motorway scheme, with minimum disruption to local road users, rather than along the lines of the initially shambolic MetroBus works in my constituency.
Since the recent meeting that I organised with the stakeholders, greater efforts have been made to communicate with local residents, and progress has been made in assisting the flow of traffic to minimise the impact on local road users at peak times. However, the MetroBus works need to be completed as quickly as possible, so that we can start reaping the benefits of the scheme.
The other local issue that I want to raise relates to Winterbourne International Academy in my constituency. The Ridings’ Federation of Academies, which runs that academy and Yate International Academy in the constituency of Thornbury and Yate, was issued with a financial notice to improve and provide a plan on how it would achieve a balanced budget, as it has a potential deficit of £1 million. Winterbourne International Academy has had some issues with its leadership and management over the past year or two, and it now finds itself in a position where it needs to be re-brokered into a new academy structure.
During that process, parents, teachers and pupils felt that they were not being kept informed. I and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), were contacted by a large number of constituents who were very concerned about what was happening at the school. My hon. Friend and I met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to bring the matter to her attention. We also met Rebecca Clark, the regional schools commissioner for south-west England, and I met the chair of trustees, Claire Emery. That enabled us to get more background information about the situation in which the federation finds itself, and to respond to our constituents and reassure them that everything possible was being done to find a solution to the difficulties in which the schools find themselves.
Winterbourne International Academy will now be taken over by a new trust. The trustees of the Ridings’ Federation of Academies have considered their options and communicated their recommendations to the regional schools commissioner, who has taken them to Lord Nash,  the Minister, for the final decision. There should be full clarity about who will run the trust early in the new year, but I want to place it on the record that, in future, better communication with parents, pupils and staff is needed.
I understand that the outcome that parents, pupils and staff are hoping for is that the school becomes part of a multi-academy trust managed jointly by the existing Olympus Academy Trust, which runs the successful Bradley Stoke Community School, and the Castle School Education Trust, which runs the successful Castle School in Thornbury. I welcome the recent news that, with effect from 3 January 2017, Dave Baker, chief executive officer of Olympus Academy Trust, and Will Roberts, CEO of Castle School Education Trust, will jointly provide interim leadership support for Winterbourne International Academy, with a view to appointing a principal at the end of January.
The third issue that I want to address ties in with my membership of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee. After the Good Friday agreement, hundreds of convicted terrorists were let out of prison in the name of peace and reconciliation. There are, therefore, lots of former terrorists walking the streets, some of whom have worked their way up into eminent positions in political life. We had the debacle over the on-the-runs letters and the John Downey case, where there is essentially a de facto amnesty for former terrorists, and yet the full force of the law is being used to prosecute people who were on the other side of events: former soldiers who were just doing their best, doing their duty and serving our great country. This is clearly wrong, and it smacks of victors’ justice. It cannot be right to let terrorists out of prison and give them get-out-of-jail letters at the same time as we pursue former British soldiers. Surely, if there is to be lasting peace and reconciliation, there needs to be fairness on all sides—not that I think for one minute that there is any moral equivalence between terrorists, and soldiers and security forces trying to keep the peace and protect lives.
My younger son, Michael, passed out of his basic military training in Pirbright a couple of weeks ago. Of course, I am immensely proud of him. When he is, as I hope he will be, deployed on an operational tour and he asks me for advice—not that sons are very good at asking their fathers for advice, but I have done an operational tour myself—do I say to him, “Be careful,” because if mistakes are made, if things go wrong or if the politics change, even 45 years later, he could be pursued through the courts in his retirement in nothing less than a politically motivated witch hunt? I do not think so. My advice would be the same as the advice I received before my operational tour: “If you feel as though your life is in danger or your comrades’ lives are in danger, do not hesitate to defend yourself.” Our Government need to support former servicepeople against this injustice, because what is happening is a stain on our country’s honour. We are letting down so badly the people who risked their life to keep us safe, protect our freedoms and preserve our way of life.

Lyn Brown: I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti). I agreed with much of what he said.
I am going to speak about three issues that have come up in community casework in my constituency. I have previously raised the issue of how hysteroscopies and uterine biopsies are conducted in the NHS. I have drawn to the attention of the House the serious pain and distress suffered by far too many women, who are not well served by the advice and support—or, frankly, the lack of support and empathy—that they receive from clinicians and the NHS.
As the House will, I know, be aware, in the hysteroscopy procedure a small camera is passed through the cervix to examine, and often take a sample from, the lining of the womb. Yes, that means cutting out a piece of the lining of the womb. The procedure is useful in the diagnosis of cancer and other womb conditions, as well as to investigate fertility issues and to perform minor operations. For most women, it is a significantly uncomfortable procedure, but for a sizeable number it can be unbearably painful, leading to significant blood loss, loss of consciousness and, in some cases, hospitalisation. Such procedures are usually carried out as outpatient appointments, and often without any kind of anaesthesia.
The NHS website helpfully says of the procedure:
“You may experience some discomfort similar to period cramps while it’s carried out, but it shouldn’t be painful.”
To say that that advice is misleading is something of an understatement. The problem is that for some women, the procedure is unacceptably painful. Hysteroscopy Action estimates that up to a quarter of UK hysteroscopy patients have reported severe pain. I know that you will agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is not acceptable to be led to presume that the worst that can happen is that, as the NHS website says, women will experience some discomfort, given that the reality is very different. All women need to be offered proper anaesthesia at the appropriate moment so that the sizeable minority who experience significant pain can be supported. To do anything else is nothing short of barbaric.
This is the third time that I have raised this matter in an Adjournment debate, so I have decided not to read out the cases that individuals have mailed to me, trusting that their stories will get action. Today, I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he will raise the matter on my behalf with the Department of Health and get a statement from the Department about pain management with hysteroscopy.
We need better systems to be put in place to ensure appropriate triage, rather than trial and error. More information about what may happen needs to be made available to patients beforehand, accompanied by the support required to ensure that women understand the risks and can make real choices about the best method of treatment for them. It is not acceptable for women to be told by a male doctor that they must have a low pain threshold when they are begging for the procedure to be stopped.
Given that this is the third time I have raised the issue and that I have received warm and comforting words from Health Ministers in the past, I fail to understand what is preventing such action. Frankly, I wonder whether it is because of money—the cost of an anaesthetic being available to women. I look forward to receiving a written response from the Department of Health. I am not an unreasonable woman, in the main—

Lindsay Hoyle: Agreed.

Lyn Brown: Thank you.

Lindsay Hoyle: In the main.

Lyn Brown: Indeed. Not unreasonably, I expect a response by mid-February. If I do not get one, I will seek a further debate in the House to focus attention on the issue. I cannot believe that other Members in the Chamber for this and previous debates think that what I have described is acceptable.
Secondly, a couple of months ago we had our first debate on arthritis for many years. Given that the condition affects about 10 million people—one in six of the population—one would have thought it deserved greater attention. In particular, it is important to understand the differences between the various types of arthritis and how they affect everyday life. Too often, we assume it is an issue for the elderly, not one that is really so important. In fact, one constituent wrote to me that she was very grateful for the debate, because she got an arthritic condition in her 20s. She was so exhausted by it that she was unable to continue working in the law, and she has spent many years trying to get it under control. She told me, “It’s not about having a creaky knee, but people believe that’s all it is—they simply do not understand how it can have a massive impact on somebody’s life.”
There are implications for employers, carers and the Government’s welfare to work policy. For example, rheumatoid arthritis, which occurs when the immune system targets affected joints, can be a fluctuating condition. If it is not properly controlled, it can make it so hard for a person to sustain full-time work; yet when properly understood and managed, there is no reason why an individual cannot continue their working lives, provided that there is sufficient understanding and flexibility not just to avoid and manage flare-ups, but to accommodate the necessary medical appointments. One constituent wrote to me to ask whether the House could consider a legal right to flexible working for those with fluctuating health conditions.
I recently spoke in the House about my own experience of having an immune-based arthritis and of getting it under control. I want to place on the record my thanks to the many constituents and others who got in touch with their stories and told me about their similar experiences. I am delighted to hear about the breakthroughs in medical science that will help others to live full working lives. The UK is leading the way in the development of many potential solutions. I have read about the medical research on osteoporosis being carried out in Glasgow, and I know that our European partners are also working in this area. I have read that clinical trials are taking place in the Netherlands to reverse the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis through using an electronic implant attached to a nerve. My concern is that some of the critical research collaborations in this area may be threatened by our departure from the European Union. I know that the House discussed these issues yesterday, but I would again be very grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House if he discussed this with whomever he needs to discuss it with and confirmed that specific areas of research on arthritis will be protected.
Finally, I would like to mention one of the more troubling and tragic cases I have received at my constituency surgery in recent months. It concerns a British national,  Ali Asghar Khan, the husband of a constituent. He was killed in Pakistan on a trip to visit family. He had been celebrating Eid and was returning home with two friends when their vehicle was ambushed on a mountainous road. A gunman opened fire and both Mr Khan and the driver of the vehicle were killed instantly. The third passenger, who was sat in the back of the car, managed to escape by jumping into the ravine and was subsequently able to raise the alarm.
My understanding is that Mr Khan was not the intended target of the attack, but that is of course little consolation to his widow and family. My constituents have struggled to ensure that his death is fully investigated and the perpetrators brought to account. Sadly, they are struggling to the point of being asked for money by the local investigating police force to transport files and take witness statements.
I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), about the case, and his response was really quite helpful. My purpose in raising the case today is to draw attention to the plight of the family of my late constituent and get a greater understanding of how the Government can meet the safety concerns of British nationals in Pakistan and what assistance is afforded to them while visiting the country. When he winds up, perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will say whether he will consider pushing for some parliamentary time to discuss the subject more widely.
I thank the House for the opportunity to raise these issues today. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, all colleagues and all the amazing staff of this House, who are so very good with us every single day, the very best for Christmas and the new year.

Bob Stewart: Having served in Northern Ireland during the troubles there, I have been asked by my old comrades in the Cheshire Regiment to highlight an iniquity that has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), my good friend: that many British soldiers could be reinvestigated for their actions during fatal shooting incidents. Apparently, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been instructed to look at about 230 fatal shooting incidents, during which some 302 people died, almost all of them terrorists. If that is the case, my understanding is that about 1,000 ex-soldiers could be hauled in to account for their actions all those years ago, and could even be retrospectively charged with manslaughter or murder.
I am appalled that such actions are being taken against our soldiers when so many terrorists from all sides were granted full pardons under the Good Friday agreement. To me, it looks like a highly political and vindictive move by Mr Barra McGrory, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. As I understand it, in the past McGrory represented Provisional Sinn Féin and on-the-run terror suspects as their solicitor. He negotiated an effective amnesty for many of them. His background hardly suggests impartiality to me.
Our soldiers were trained to apply strict rules of engagement. The so-called yellow card—technically, “Instructions by the Director of Operations for Opening Fire in Northern Ireland”—was both detailed and precise.  The rules of engagement outlined exactly when soldiers could use firearms, and our troops spent a long time being instructed about them during pre-Northern Ireland training sessions.
Opening fire in Northern Ireland was considered a very serious matter by the Army. After every shooting incident, regardless of casualties, the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary held an investigation. When such events involved casualties or fatalities, strict procedures were followed. That normally involved soldiers having to go to court to prove that they had acted within the law and the yellow card rules.
In one incident in which I played a small part, I recall having to tell two soldiers that, having escaped with their lives by opening fire, they would none the less be charged with manslaughter. Unsurprisingly, the two men, still in some shock, were utterly appalled. They shouted at me, saying that they had been abandoned by the Army. As their superior officer, I totally understood their feelings and shared them. None the less, the Royal Ulster Constabulary had informed me that the two soldiers had to be charged with manslaughter. Personally I was furious and I argued vociferously that this was wrong and very unfair. Regardless, the soldiers appeared in court. It was quickly proved that they had acted within the law, and their case was dismissed.
It was difficult for me and especially the soldiers at the time to understand the reason for that court appearance, but it was explained to me that, having had their case dismissed, they could never be charged again—perhaps, if the political climate changed. Guess what? It seems to have done. I had difficulty seeing the logic at the time. Then later, after the immediate drama was over, I did. I believed that the whole matter had been dealt with in court and it was over—for ever. But maybe I was wrong. I presume that my two men could be among the 302 soldiers apparently under investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland.
I do not maintain that our servicemen and women are above the law—of course they are not. But re-opening all fatal shooting incidents involving soldiers is hugely one-sided and looks very bad to the armed services community, and that includes me and several other Members of the House.

Chris Matheson: I am most grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He was a leader of the Cheshire Regiment, and many of my constituents served with him in that excellent regiment. Does he agree that all those former servicemen who risked their lives serving in Northern Ireland, including my constituents, deserve to have that black cloud removed from them as quickly as possible?

Bob Stewart: I thank my good friend—I call him that because he comes from Chester and I commanded the Cheshire Regiment—for that intervention. Yes, our soldiers should not be under this cloud. They are not terrorists. Terrorists have been given amnesty and a pardon in the Good Friday agreement. Why should our men, some of them quite old now, not sleep soundly when terrorists who have killed do so? It is wrong, iniquitous and possibly malicious, and it is a huge waste of public money while we are at it. Why is the Director of Public Prosecutions not telling the Police Service of Northern  Ireland to direct its efforts into clearing up and charging so many unsolved terrorist murders from the time of the troubles?
Incidents involving soldiers were investigated at the time and, if wrong was done, our soldiers were taken to court at the time. Some even went to prison. What sort of people are we who give terrorists amnesty and hound those who put their lives at risk for the rest of us?
I demand that the legal authorities in Northern Ireland desist from this clearly politically inspired blanket action against what could be almost 1,000 soldiers. They should concentrate their energies on finding the still-unlocated remains of the many innocent people massacred by terrorists, and bring those murderers to book.

Jim Shannon: It is always a real pleasure to follow the gallant gentleman, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I wholeheartedly support his comments, and those of the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti); I think they resonate with everyone in the House. We all want the prosecutions and investigations to stop.
May I first associate myself and my party, the Democratic Unionist party, with the comments that have been made about all those who have lost loved ones in the awfulness of the unspeakable attack, so close to a church, in Berlin? We offer our sincere sympathies. It is good that we remember, at this time of year, those who grieve.
In the short time available, I want to speak about making a difference. I also want to focus on this time of the year. I am one of those guys who loves Christmas. I love taking my grandchildren to special church services, attending services in different churches and just remembering the real reason for the season: a chance to celebrate Jesus. We all know, in all reality, that 25 December is not just the day Jesus was born. It is a time to focus our minds on the greatest gift ever given to mankind: the Lord Jesus, the greatest story ever told.
Last week, I tabled an early-day motion on the real meaning of Christmas. Many Members took the opportunity to sign it and to endorse that comment. The Christmas message is the celebration of Jesus who came as a baby, grew to be a man and gave his life for those who would accept him into their hearts. I love the celebration of his birth, as I see it as a time for faith, for family and for focus. I want to thank the Lord Jesus for the personal faith that I have.
I thank God for the time that I spend over Christmas with my family: with my wife and the boys, my granddaughters and my mother. I take the two days as days to be with them. I cherish the time to laugh—and to be laughed at!—and just to be in each other’s company all together. Finally, I see it as a time when I refocus on what is important and on what I need to do. It is a time when I think on my role and how I can make a difference in my own family, my own community and my own constituency.
The hon. Member for Beckenham spoke about our soldiers. While we are in this House, Army, RAF and Navy personnel, and those in the emergency services—the police, fire and ambulance services—are all working to protect us. We should put that on the record.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am the chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief. I want to focus on and pray for persecuted Christians across the world who cannot worship their God as we will this Christmas, and to think of the 100,000 Christians who will be killed for their faith this year, the 200 million who will be persecuted and the 2 billion who live in an endangered neighbourhood. Those are the facts of where we are.
It is Christmas time and we all enjoy a good Christmas movie. “It’s a Wonderful Life” starring James Stewart is a great film that could probably epitomise the life of every person in the Chamber and every person we meet out in the street, because every person’s life has an effect on everyone else. When I think about making a difference, I want to focus on that. I will relate a quick story to illustrate that, which I believe carries a lesson for us all.
An old man used to go to the ocean to do his writing. Early one morning, he was walking along the shore after a big storm had passed and found the vast beach littered with starfish in both directions as far as the eye could see. Off in the distance, the old man noticed a small boy approaching, wearing his wellington boots and carrying a bucket. As the boy walked, he paused every so often. As he grew closer, the man could see that he was occasionally bending down to pick up an object, put it into his bucket and take it into the sea. The boy came closer still and the man called out, “Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?” The young boy paused, looked up and replied, “Taking starfish into the ocean. The tide has washed them up on to the beach and they can’t return to the sea by themselves. When the sun gets high, they will die unless I take them back to the water.” The old man said, “But there must be tens of thousands of starfish on the beach, and I am afraid that you will not be able to make much of a difference.” The young boy bent down and picked up yet another starfish, put it into his bucket and took it out to the sea as far as he could. Then he turned, smiled and said, “Ah, yes, but I can make a difference to this one.” People may raise their eyebrows—

Chris Matheson: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his inspiring story. I would like to pay tribute to his work on the all-party group on freedom of religion or belief. It is my belief that he is making a difference to people across the world, and for that, I am most grateful to him.

Hear, hear.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I greatly appreciate.
People may raise their eyebrows when I highlight individual cases in this place, but it is because I believe in trying to make a difference where I can. There is time for each Member to focus on our constituencies to see where we can make a difference. It could be the time taken to fill out a benefits form for someone who is deserving; contacting the Housing Executive to get someone’s heating fixed more quickly; the time spent sitting down with businessmen and women to see how they feel the Government could do better for small and medium-sized businesses; giving someone help to get an operation or to get further up the list for their medical examinations and investigations to be done; contacting  the road service about potholes; the time taken with producers to register concerns about Brexit and to highlight the necessities going forward; or the time we take as MPs to encourage others to focus on their families and communities. I believe that we have a duty and a responsibility to attempt to encourage others to do what we do and not simply as we say.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland in my area recently put a post on Facebook, and instead of breaking into a house where an elderly lady had rung for an ambulance but could not come to the door, neighbours were able to contact the family to let the emergency services in. This sense of community simply warmed my heart, and harks back to the days long ago when people left their doors open and their neighbours looked out for them. I am sure we can all remember that happening in the past. There is more of a need now than ever to take care of each other where we can, to look out for our elderly relatives and neighbours, and to help where we can. Yes, it takes time; yes, it takes effort; but we will all be the beneficiaries from living in a community that cares, one in which people can and do trust their neighbours. Perhaps that is the Christmas message that applies all year round, which should be sent from this Chamber: make a difference where you can.
I am very aware that I am only one of 650 Members in this place. I am only one of an eight-strong DUP team grouping in this place. It is a party that, if I may say so respectfully, boxes above its weight. Instead of throwing my hands up and giving up on making a difference, I pledge to keep on making a difference where I can. This is the mantra that I believe this new year should bring: do what we can for everyone. I have a lovely quotation from Edward Everett Hale:
“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do.”
This is a lesson that we in this place can all take on board: to have the mentality of doing what we can for all those that we can help.
I want to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to all the Deputy Speakers and to Mr Speaker for your understanding and your patience, and for giving us the chance to speak in this House. That applies particularly to myself, given that I try to contribute on a regular basis. I thank you, too, for understanding my Ulster Scots accent. I see that the Deputy Leader of the House is looking at me, and I know that he enjoys my Ulster Scots accent, so I hope he has understood my speech well. I want to thank all the staff who look after us here and keep us safe. I thank the Hansard staff who clearly write down all the words. Just when I think they are getting to understand me, they send down a wee note asking, “What was that you said again?” We still have some learning to do, but it is a privilege and pleasure to be a Member of this House.

Bob Stewart: I would like to say one thing to my friend: sometimes we may not understand you, but my God, you’ve got one hell of a heart, and we can see it.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he knows, I think the same about him, and we have a mutual understanding in relation both to our service in Northern Ireland, in uniform, and to our service in the House.
I wish all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas and a happy new year, and God bless for 2017.

Tania Mathias: I, too, think that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) makes a big difference in the House, and is a great asset to the Chamber.
I agreed with everything that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) about the onerous nature of the quarterly tax returns, and I hope that the Minister will think about her proposals, which I fully support.
I want to speak briefly about assessments by the Department for Work and Pensions. I am pleased to say that we have good employment figures in my constituency, and I am grateful for the fact that since 2010 the unemployment figures have decreased by 34%. I am, however, concerned about the attitude shown in DWP assessments.
Many of us have seen Ken Loach’s film “I, Daniel Blake”, and observed the excellent acting of Dave Johns in that film. It is a very moving film, but what is more troubling for me is the people whom I have met in my surgery who are not actors, but who have lived through the kind of scenes that have been portrayed by Ken Loach. Indeed, I have seen people who have been treated worse than the character in “I, Daniel Blake”.
My concern, which I have mentioned to Ministers in the past, is that people with terminal illnesses or degenerative conditions must not go through an assessment if they have a consultant’s report. I value the assurance from the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), that such people did not need to have repeated assessments, but others who undergo the DWP assessment must be treated with dignity. I have met people—gentlemen older than me—who have been shamed in those assessments, and who have not been given the respect that they deserve. That is shameful.
I believe that, just as we need the police to wear body cameras, we need DWP assessments to be recorded—with, obviously, the agreement of the people undergoing them—so that if it is felt that someone has not been treated with respect, or, worse, has been shamed, the assessors can at least be shown why and how they have given that impression, and training can be provided so that it never, ever happens again. There needs to be recording, and there needs to be more accountability. No one should ever feel shamed when undergoing these assessments.
Having said that, as this is Christmas, I wish Mr Speaker and his Deputies, our excellent staff and all Members a very merry and peaceful break.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I want to raise a number of points. As we move towards Christmas we celebrate the birth of new life, but many Members and others who work here will be reflecting on bereavements. I have been in the Chamber and listened to outpourings from colleagues who have lost babies. Then we think of the murder of  our colleague Jo Cox. I join other Members in hoping that that record will become No. 1, and a good bit of money will be made from it.
My own mother, Maud, died earlier this year at the age of 104. People would say that she had had a good innings, and she did live long enough to vote in the European referendum. Obviously, however, for many people Christmas will not be quite the same, so I want to spend a moment talking about bereavement counselling services. As I listened to colleagues talking about their experiences 10, 15 or even 20 years ago, it was clear to me that those services are very important.
I praise the all-party parliamentary group for funerals and bereavement for what it does, and, in particular, I praise Fair Havens Hospice, in my constituency. For over 30 years the hospice’s staff have carried out the wishes of Dame Cicely Saunders and have allowed people to live rather than to die. They play a vital role in supporting families in their time of greatest need and their bereavement counselling services are second to none. More than 75% of those who work at the hospice are volunteers, and £3 out of every £4 goes to the hospice. I hope that somewhere in the wider world there is an individual with lots of money who might help us, as we want to kick-start the fund for our new hospice.
Southend hospital has a number of challenges. I was convinced by the Essex success regime that we would see management changes, but that just has not happened yet. I hope we can get on with it, and any alterations to accident and emergency services can only happen if they are clinically led.
I am delighted to tell the House that on 1 January Southend alternative city of culture will be launched. An illuminated train will be going to the end of the pier—the longest pier in the world—and our new Southend town crier will be saying, “Oyez, oyez, oyez,” welcoming the year of celebrations. We have 12 themes. Each month we will be celebrating food and drink, music, fashion, architecture, the armed forces: the list is endless, and I am greatly heartened by the way the local community is rallying around in support of the event.
At the same time Southend will be celebrating the 125th anniversary of the founding of the borough. There will be events celebrating the historic milestone, including the festival of Southend-on-Sea, led by her worship the mayor of Southend Mrs Judith McMahon and the leader of the council John Lamb. It will be a wonderful occasion.
John Lamb is very concerned that the upper tier local authorities are struggling to meet the spiralling costs of adult social care, with budgets still reducing through reductions in Government grant. I will be grateful if my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House gently asks the Secretary of State to again look at funding for adult social care, particularly for councils such as Southend.
The Scottish National party chose the Chilcot inquiry as the subject of one of its Opposition day debates. I was very disappointed with the outcome. The Chilcot report took seven years to produce and cost £13 million. Most Members were not present so cannot be blamed, but a terrible mistake was made. It is clear from the report who was to blame and I very much hope that at some stage the former Prime Minister Tony Blair will be  called before one of the Select Committees to give an account of how on earth he came to those decisions which were clearly wrong.
On Iran, I was very pleased to see that the refugees from Camp Liberty were successfully airlifted to Albania back in September, and I hope that Mrs Maryam Rajavi, leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, will be able to speak in the UK at some point.
School inspections is a worry for all our schools, and I was appalled by the inspection at our wonderful local Our Lady of Lourdes school. I do not know whether the inspector had an agenda, but how on earth the inspectorate team could have judged the school as failing beggars belief. That shows absolutely poor judgment. School inspections generally should be revisited when a new chief inspector of schools is in place.
My constituent David Forde was arrested under counter-terrorism legislation at the beginning of the month after returning from Kurdistan where he had been giving infantry and life-saving medical training to the Peshmerga, who have been funded by the UK. His arrest is a disgrace. This constituent has been left with no money and no support and I intend on another occasion to raise the subject in a dedicated Adjournment debate.
Mr Markos, a constituent of mine, and his mother have lost their home—he has lost everything—following a boundary dispute about a fence that was just 4 inches out of place. In his case, the law was an ass, and this perverse case really wants looking at again.
In August, we launched a public appeal in Southend for the London Shipwreck Trust. I am a trustee of the organisation, and it is wonderful that valuable artefacts are being rescued from the Thames estuary.
Pulse fishing has been brought to my attention by fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea. I do not think that fish terribly enjoy having pulses sent through their bodies, and I hope that the Fisheries Minister will carefully consider the issue before he comes to meet me and others.
The Eastwood Academy is one of the outstanding schools in my constituency. It has achieved magnificent progress at all levels and was selected to appear in the 2016 Parliamentary Review for its efforts in raising standards in secondary education.
I was delighted to support Gas Safety Week. There have been more than 20 gas-related deaths and over 1,000 gas-related injuries over the past three years.
I recently met Jesuits from the Philippines, including Richard Greenwood, assistant director of Jesuit Missions, and Father Pat and Bernie, who spoke to me about the inspiring work of SLB, their organisation which promotes socio-political involvement and has led massive disaster-relief operations. I commend them for their work.
Anglia Ruskin University celebrates 25 years of university status next year. I recently met the new vice-chancellor, who briefed me on the plans for the next 25 years, including specialist medical degrees aimed at increasing the number of doctors and nurses to fill vacancies in the NHS. I salute the university for its work.
Marine protection zones are important. The UK has a reputation for being a leader in ocean conservation, and I congratulate conservationists on their work.
I want to refer to a few local issues. I congratulate Borough, a third-generation family-owned plating business, for sustaining its operations for 50 years. I was delighted to visit Pride & Joy Classic Cars in my constituency.  I congratulate the local activists who took part in the walk of witness for climate change and the active ageing event that was held in my constituency. It was also a privilege to visit the explore enterprise programme run by the Prince’s Trust, and I congratulate the young people involved on their wonderful work. I visited Angloco, which is doing marvellous work in delivering 45 new fire engines to Essex County Fire and Rescue. I also had the opportunity to visit Pinewood Studios. I am still waiting for a casting, but it is going to help with the alternative city of culture project.
I also had good visits to the Philippines, where one of our colleagues took us to Smokey Mountain, which was a humbling experience, and to the Dominican Republic, which is keen on doing further trade with us.
So, Brexit does mean Brexit, and I hope that we will make a success of it. I wish Mr Speaker, the three Deputy Speakers, all parliamentary colleagues and everyone who works in the House of Commons a very happy Christmas, good health and a wonderful new year.

Martin Vickers: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who represents arguably the second best seaside resort on the east coast. Before I move on to what are more mundane issues than those that others have spoken about, I want to say how much I agree with the comments of my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who spoke for the whole House.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—my hon. Friend—reminded us of the real message of Christmas. Like many Members, I have attended many services of nine lessons and carols over the past couple of weeks, which of course include the opening passages from the gospel of St John. I always find particularly profound the section about how Jesus came into the world, but
“the world knew him not.”
We often reflect on some of the more perverted religious happenings in the news, but we should remember the true meaning and the fact that faith is the driving force for so much good that happens in the world. I commend the hon. Gentleman for what he said about that.
I wish to reflect on some of the more mundane issues that affect my constituency and highlight some challenges facing it. In doing so, I am mindful that I do not want to give the impression that I am just here holding out a begging bowl to the Government for more money for this, that and the other, although that would be very welcome. The resort of Cleethorpes has responded to the changing situation and has an offer unsurpassed among resorts on the east coast. Only last week, one of the three finalists in the British high street awards were the traders from Sea View Street in Cleethorpes, which shows how dedicated small, independent retailers can be. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West talked about the longest pier, but Cleethorpes has the pier of the year, a prize that we are certainly not going to be giving up easily to Southend, however cultured it may or may not be. My constituency also contains the largest port complex in the country, at Immingham, and has a rich rural hinterland stretching as far north as Barton-upon-Humber, at the southern end of the Humber bridge.
So much for the advantages of my area—I now turn to how we are going to meet the challenges. Regeneration is an essential ingredient of lifting morale, and in the North East Lincolnshire Council area we have put together a team made up of the council leader, the chief executive, myself and a number of private sector partners. We are putting together plans that I am sure will attract private sector investors, but that will need some Government support. I have discussed this with a number of Ministers in recent weeks, and we hope to receive that support when plans are finalised. As I said, this is not just holding out a begging bowl, but a genuine attempt to inject investment into the area.
Cleethorpes has done incredibly well, but may I draw attention to local government funding? I recognise that local government was bloated and, to some extent, inefficient. I spent 26 years as a local councillor, so I have seen many of its failings, but the Government need to recognise that a council budget can be cut only so far. I am not referring to adult social care, important though that is; many of the things that make our lives that little bit better—libraries, parks, gardens and so on—are being cut to the bone in many respects. Those little things do improve people’s quality of life. We need them and enjoy them, and I urge the Government to recognise that as we try to come to terms with balancing the country’s finances.
Housing is rightly a priority for the Government, who have introduced many new and innovative schemes, but too many homes are being built on greenfield sites. The main entrance to a town such as Cleethorpes could be greatly enhanced by investment, whereby retail units that have been made redundant by a change in shopping habits could be given new life. This is a main arterial route into the resort, and investment in such an area is very worth while. While on the subject of housing, let me say that I note the section in the statement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government saying that a consultation would be held on whether or not to withhold new homes bonus payments from developments that were granted only after appeal. I can give my response to that consultation now: forget it! Local democracy is important and the Government have done a lot to bring about localism, but this move goes completely against that. I urge the Government to think again and abandon even the consultation.
Transport connections are vital to any local economy, and my constituency is no exception. It is moderately well served by road, with the A180-M180 link providing access into the national motorway network, although there is room for improvement. The A180 still has stretches of that old concrete surface, which is extremely annoying to my constituents who live in villages such as Stallingborough and causes an unacceptable level of noise.
I welcome the almost complete £100 million A160 upgrade, which will enhance access to the port of Immingham. The next part of the jigsaw in the network of roads that give access to Immingham and the Humber ports is the A15 between Lincoln and where it joins the A180 close to Scunthorpe. It is an extremely dangerous single-carriageway road that urgently needs dualling. I recognise that it is a local road and that the Government can therefore get away with saying, “It’s nothing to do with us, gov,” but it provides important access to the Humber ports, which are part of a strategic Government policy, so the Government need to give the road some consideration.
Let me turn to rail services. This is yet another opportunity for me to put the case for a direct rail service between Cleethorpes and Grimsby and London Kings Cross. Business in the area regards it as vital and this issue is raised at every meeting I and neighbouring MPs attend. As I mentioned, Immingham is the largest port in the country—25% of the rail freight in the country comes and goes from there, but passengers cannot and the area needs that. The Office of Rail and Road recently considered an application from Great North Eastern Railways, an open-access operator that wanted to provide those services. However, because it was linked to additional services into Yorkshire, the ORR had to reject it because it had to protect Virgin East Coast’s market share. I recognise how important that is from the Treasury’s point of view, as Virgin pays a huge amount of money for the privilege of running those trains, but is that decision more to do with the interests of the company and the Treasury rather than the interests of the passengers?
I chair the regeneration committee for Barton-upon-Humber in the North Lincolnshire Council part of my constituency. I congratulate Councillor Rob Waltham, the deputy leader of the council, who sits alongside me at those meetings and delivers some of the minor improvements to the town that are essential. I know that that goes against what I was saying earlier, but I question how long even a well-run council such as North Lincolnshire will be able to maintain those schemes.
I remind the House that the rural economy is not just about agriculture but about other rural pursuits and it is important that we recognise that conservation comes naturally to those working in the countryside.
Finally, may I reflect on the educational performance in our area? Like many coastal communities we have many high-performing schools but poor standards overall. The argument about selection will run and run, as it has for the past 30 years. My view is that if selection can provide our young people with more choice in the schools in the area we should focus on the areas where results demand change. Grammar schools can be a force for good and, for some, that is an opportunity we should not deny them. I would also argue that bilateral schools, which are part selective, have a role to play in my area.
I will conclude by following on from the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West about Brexit, which was voted for by 70% of my constituents. I believe that they were right to do so and that it will give our country more opportunities. In our area, the common fisheries policy has long been a cause for concern. I urge the Government, as I have done on previous occasions, not to forget the fishing industry. It was forgotten in those original negotiations in the 1970s. At one time up to 600 deep sea trawlers sailed out of Grimsby, providing thousands of jobs to the Grimsby and Cleethorpes area. That is now down to a handful of near water boats, but there are still great opportunities for those in the fishing industry and the food and fish processing industry, which are vital to the Cleethorpes constituency.
I conclude by wishing you, Mr Speaker, and all Members and staff a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.

James Berry: I start by thanking all the emergency services for their work over the Christmas period, especially those who will be working while we are enjoying time with our families. As I propose to speak on a Home Affairs issue, I pay particular tribute to the police.
I was out on a Walk the Met session with the Chessington safer neighbourhood team just last week and saw the excellent work they do for us day in, day out. Kingston is now the safest borough in London and I want to put on record my thanks to Chief Superintendent Glenn Tunstall, who retires in three days as Kingston’s borough commander with that accolade. I am pleased that I started my dealings with Chief Superintendent Tunstall with a campaign for more police officers in Kingston town centre and ended it with a campaign for automatic number plate recognition software on the A3 corridor, both of which he pushed for and our Conservative council is delivering.
Today I want to speak about a national challenge for the police—the rise of hate speech and extremism online. I will refer to Facebook and Twitter because they are the most widely used social networks, not because they are the only platforms on which these issues arise or the only companies that bear responsibility for them. Social media has revolutionised the way we communicate, the way we receive news and information and the way companies advertise. Undoubtedly, it has many social benefits and can be used as a force for good, but social media platforms are being abused by those who wish to do our society and individuals in our society grave harm.
It is important to remember at all times that these social media platforms are not established and maintained out of a sense of altruism. They are designed to make money for their owners, principally through advertising revenues. The revenues of Facebook in particular are enormous and I do not criticise the company for that.
Right now, in less than a minute, any Member of this House with an iPhone would be able to find copious amounts of hate speech on Twitter—racism, especially anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, homophobia and many other forms of discrimination, and not just language that would not survive the Equality Act 2010, but language that is downright abusive and would not survive our criminal law.
In the Home Affairs Committee’s recent report on anti-Semitism, we outlined how a Jewish colleague received 2,500 abusive tweets over a few days using the hashtag #filthyjewbitch. Two of her abusers have already been sent to prison for this. Now there can be no dispute that that hashtag is offensive, abusive and racist, yet if one searches for that hashtag now, as I did just a few moments ago, one will find it still on Twitter, not from two hours ago or even two weeks ago, but from two years ago. I say that that is a disgrace, especially after the matter has been raised by a Committee of this House.
Although hate speech makes up a very small proportion of the overall traffic on social networking sites, when we live our lives more and more online, and this speech exists online in a way that it does not exist in the street or in the way we speak to one another, there is a risk that it becomes normalised and gives a licence to others to repeat it and to do worse.
I turn to the other factor—extremism. The issue does not stop at hate speech. Just as social media are used by people to advertise holidays and beauty products, they are used by those who want to advertise terrorism. It is no exaggeration to say that Daesh has run the most successful propaganda campaign since Goebbels in Nazi Germany, yet Daesh has a much wider audience because of the reach of social media. It has managed to persuade people who enjoy all the rights and privileges that we enjoy in this country to travel to Syria to work with a barbarous medieval regime or to commit atrocities here in Europe, like those which we saw in Nice and appear to have seen in Berlin.
I am not going to overstate my case and blame all of this on social media, because that is certainly not the reality, but I am going to say that young people in Britain today are being radicalised in their bedrooms, and the gateway to a lot of the radical material online is the common social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. In addition to being a conduit through which extremists are recruited, social media are used by Daesh and its supporters to generate propaganda to attract support and funds. Social media platforms that are used by millions of our constituents every minute of every day are being abused by people who want to peddle extremism and hate. What are social media companies doing about that? The answer is, far too little. I have not heard one Member of this House demur from that proposition.
I am not sure that we, as a society, should accept the proposition that organisations such as social media companies should be allowed to create something to make money that has the potential to do harm, or at least to facilitate harm, and then claim that because it has become so big, it is unreasonable to expect it to do more to prevent that harm. I say that the polluter should pay.
Who is left to pick up the pieces? As is so often the case, it is the police. With the Home Affairs Committee and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who was then our Chair, I visited Scotland Yard to see the unit where dozens of officers spend all day every day going through Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms to flag up this material. They do that not really for any law enforcement purpose—they are not there to apply for a court order—but merely so that they can tell Twitter, in particular, that something violates its own in-house terms of use. To its credit, Twitter often removes that material, but why should the police have to do the searching? The Committee also visited The Hague, where Europol has a similar unit for non-English language material. My question is this: why should our constituents’ taxes be used to fund our police to do the work that social media companies should be doing themselves?
My father, who passed away three years ago this week, was fond of quoting Margaret Thatcher. I have not been able to verify this quote, but she once said that she did not like people coming to her with problems but no solutions. I will therefore present three options in the few minutes remaining. The first is to consider legislation. The most straightforward approach would be to make social media companies liable for what they allow or enable to be published on their platforms. For other reasons, including libel and copyright law, that would be devastating for those companies; they do not want it  to happen. The German Government announced only last week that they will consider legislating for fines of up to half a million euros for social media companies that fail to remove within 24 hours posts that breach Germany’s hate speech laws. We can be emboldened by the fact that our friends and allies in Europe are considering legislation.
The second option is to encourage social action. Social media companies rely on their members seeing the advertising from which they make money. If we voted with our feet, they would not be able to survive. If we, as users of social media—most, if not all of us are —made it clear that we would not stand for hate speech or extremism on those platforms, that would send a very clear message.
The third option, which I favour, is that social media companies get their own house in order, take a bit of responsibility and, for once, show some real leadership. They could establish, or at least fund, a not-for-profit organisation that employs people to identify and remove offending posts, that uses and develops their technological brilliance in order to filter out that material for manual checking, and that has police officers stationed there, paid for by that organisation, to gather intelligence and progress any cases that need legal input. There is a model for that in the National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children in Washington, DC, which I have had the fortune to visit. It is a not-for-profit organisation, funded by the technology sector—in large part by Facebook and Google—that tackles, among other things, online child exploitation. Why can that not apply to online hate speech and extremism?
I suggest that social media companies go away from Christmas, have a long, hard think and come back early in the new year with a proper proposal for an organisation of that kind, so that they can tackle online extremism and hate speech. If they do not do so, they should expect to be scrutinised in this House and for there to be concerted calls for legislation to make them do so in 2017.
On that note, I wish you, Mr Speaker, and everyone else present a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Keith Vaz: It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), who gave an excellent speech. He is right to have raised the problems of extremism and hate crime on the world wide web. I had to step out during the debate because I was leading my own debate on the tragic death of Brandon Singh Rayat, a 15-year-old boy who committed suicide because of the cyber-bullying he had experienced, and I am glad his parents are in the Public Gallery, as they were earlier in Westminster Hall.
The hon. Gentleman is right that leadership needs to be shown on this issue. There has been a succession of reports by the Home Affairs Committee, one them co-authored by the Deputy Leader of the House before he was promoted to his august position. The tragedy is that these things are not followed up—an excuse is always given. The hon. Gentleman’s example of the organisation, funded by the companies, that can professionally monitor what is going on, rather than people having to try to find out who in California they  should speak to if they want something removed from the net, is a very good one. Rather than serving on the Home Affairs Committee, he should be giving evidence to it on this important point. I hope he will put his example to the Committee when it next meets.
In the few moments I have to speak in this traditional debate, I want to raise a few of my passions. First, as I said, I am glad to see the parents of Brandon Singh Rayat here. I hope the debate will lead to Mina Rayat being able to pursue her important campaign on cyber-bullying, which she launched two weeks ago, and that she will continue with it. When someone loses a child of 15—some of us in the House today are parents—it must be an unspeakable tragedy for them, and this campaign will give hope to families in a similar position.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned support for his local police service. When the Deputy Leader of the House comes to reply, I hope he will give us some good news about an issue that still concerns me: the Government’s failure to announce the police funding formula for not just the Leicestershire constabulary but the police service throughout the country. The former policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), said the review of the police funding formula had been paused until the National Police Chiefs Council had completed its investigation into policing capabilities. We now know that Sara Thornton, the chair of the council, has said there is nothing to stop the review from proceeding at the same time as her capabilities review. It would therefore be good to find out when constabularies such as Leicestershire and Buckinghamshire, London boroughs such as Kingston and, indeed, Northern Ireland—although I think there is probably a different formula there—will know precisely how much money the police will have to spend.
As is my custom, I want to mention diabetes; I would be missing an opportunity if I did not. There is a time of year when people eat a lot of sugar, mince pies, cakes and things of that kind, as I have just done—I will have my metformin shortly to compensate. It is important to look at the variations in care for diabetes. Diabetes UK published a very interesting report with the all-party group on diabetes, which I am privileged to chair. The report was launched by the Health Secretary recently and pointed out that people are able to get structured education and care in certain parts of the country but not in others.
If, when I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I had been sent off to the gym instead of being sent to the pharmacy to get my metformin and my other tablets, perhaps I would have prevented its onset. It would have come eventually, I know, because my mother had diabetes as well, but that might have prevented for a little longer its taking hold of my system. We should look at ways of saving money in the long term by spending more money now, and that means through structured education.
A number of my constituents will be heading off to India because the Indian Government have decided to recall the 1,000 rupee note, which is worth about £10, and the 500 rupee note, which is worth only £5, as part of their campaign to root out corruption in India. A number of British Indians came back with rupees when they last visited the country. When we go abroad we change our money and sometimes do not change it  back over there but bring it back with us. A lot of my constituents, and indeed other members of the British Indian community, are having to change their money by 31 December, so many of them have very quickly decided to go back in order to bank it before it ceases to be legal tender. It is as though we had gone abroad with our £20 notes and suddenly the British Government had announced, “The £20 notes are no longer legal tender—please come back and bank them before 31 December.”
I wrote to the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, about the issue. He wrote back to tell me that if the Indian Government agreed, he would be quite happy for the rupees to be banked in an Indian bank in the United Kingdom to save my British Indian constituents, and others, from having to go all the way back to India. A lot of cricket supporters who have just gone over to India for the cricket matches have changed their pounds into rupees and now cannot change them back, so this is a good way of proceeding.
I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could speak to the Foreign Secretary; I wrote to him some time ago to ask the British Government to contact the Indian Government to enable the notes to be banked in the United Kingdom. There are eight Indian banks in Leicester East; I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House has one or two in Northampton North. This is an opportunity to save a lot of money for people who would otherwise have to go all the way to India just to put their money in the bank.
I have two final points, one of which is about Yemen. There is tragedy in Syria. The tragedies in Berlin and Turkey are terrible events that have shocked the whole world, but the situation in Yemen has now been ongoing for 15 months. Mr Speaker, you kindly granted an urgent question last week when we looked at the situation in Yemen, and the situation is not improving. The basic foods are not available. As I said to the Prime Minister when she gave her statement on the European Council on Monday, citizens in Hudaydah are eating grass and drinking sea water. The ports are closed and the airport is closed, so wheat cannot be brought into Yemen. Without wheat, people will not be able to survive.
This is not about a lack of aid. I thank you again, Mr Speaker, for coming to the Yemen day that we held last week, where we met members of the Yemen diaspora. Eight aid agencies were there, together with a Minister of State at the Department for International Development and a Foreign Office Minister, and we heard from the UN Deputy Secretary-General. Unless the ports and the airport are opened, humanitarian aid cannot be got in. The appeal launched last week by the Disasters Emergency Committee on the BBC has raised a lot of money, but there is no point in just having the money; it has to be spent on the people in Hudaydah and in other parts of Yemen. I very much hope that we will pursue the cause of a ceasefire.
Finally, let me say why I will remember 2016 as a good year. There are lots of reasons why I might not remember it as being particularly riveting, but for one reason I will: the victory of Leicester City football club as the English champions. It was one of those great events. I am not going to say that it will never happen again, because we know what happened to Mr Gary Lineker. Full marks to him for wearing only his underwear, as he promised he would do, when he lost his bet with the nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a Leicester City supporter—he supports the foxes. Every time I go to a match at the King Power stadium, I bring him back a programme. People wonder why I take two programmes and I always say that one of them is for him, so he has a collection that is as good, if not better, than mine. A number of other Members also support Leicester City football club. This was our year—it was a fantastic year—and that is why I was so pleased that, only on Sunday, Signor Ranieri was named coach of the year and Leicester City team of the year. The year 2016 has been a historic year for us; we will never, ever forget it and it will probably never be repeated.

Jim Shannon: Did Arsenal win anything?

Keith Vaz: I was going to say something about Arsenal—I thank my hon. Friend—because, of course, Mr Speaker is a great supporter of theirs. What unites us, of course, is that we do not really want to see Chelsea win the league. I think that it is Arsenal’s turn, but every time they get to the top of the premier league, something goes wrong. This year, we will keep our fingers crossed—not just for Mr Speaker, but for young Oliver, who can recite the players’ names backwards and forwards in the blink of an eye. Of course, we will carry on winning the premier league, but we would like to share it; it is only fair that we should give it to another team. This week I will place a bet on Leicester winning the champions league, because I am hopeful that we will proceed. That is what 2017 will be all about for me.
May I end by wishing you, Mr Speaker, the staff of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House, Ministers and colleagues on both sides of the House a very happy Christmas? I understand that it was an old tradition—I wonder whether this is in “Erskine May”—that whoever wound up this debate for the Government always ensured that every Member who was still in the House when it rose for the Christmas recess would get a mince pie. I do not know whether you have heard that particular story, Mr Speaker, but one of the Doorkeepers mentioned it to me, so I am looking forward to visiting the rooms of the Deputy Leader of the House at the end of the day and getting one. Let us hope that 2017 is a great year in which all our ambitions and dreams can be fulfilled.

Jeremy Lefroy: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), even though I am an Arsenal supporter, like you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate Leicester City on their fine achievement earlier this year.
At the beginning of last week, I was in Berlin with the Parliament choir and it was a great honour to sing in the Bundestag building. It is with great sadness that we heard of the terrible event last night. I am sure that all members of the Parliament choir and others who were in Berlin at the time—my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) was there with the Communities and Local Government Committee—will wish to pass on our condolences to the people of Germany.
Stafford has this year seen some great developments economically. General Electric, which took over the business of Alstom in Stafford and elsewhere, has almost completed the construction of its first new factory, which  contains its automation business. After the referendum, it decided to go ahead with the construction of its second new factory in Stafford, on the Redhill business park, and that will deal with its high-voltage direct current business. Stafford is a world leader in that regard and I welcome that development.
I also welcome a Chinese institution’s investment in the site of the former campus of Staffordshire University, which it vacated in order to go to Stoke-on-Trent earlier this year. A new university will be established in Stafford, alongside an international school. I welcome the continuance of higher education in Stafford provided by Keele University through its medical school and, indeed, by Staffordshire University, which maintains another campus in the town.
It was announced this year that the Ministry of Defence would further expand its site in Stafford to welcome more servicemen and women in the coming years, and I very much welcome that. Stafford has a great tradition of hosting the armed forces, both the RAF and the Army, and the arrival last year of two new regiments—1 Signals and 16 Signals—to join 22 Signals has made a great and positive difference to our town.
Our IT sector in Stafford is expanding, as are many small and medium-sized businesses. As it is Christmas time, I want to pay particular tribute to those who run small and medium-sized businesses. Year in, year out, those people work 60, 70 or 80 hours a week running businesses, employing people and paying their taxes. They are not much sung about, and they often have to deal with a lot of hassle, but they get on with the job of providing jobs and, to a large extent, they keep this country going. More than 50% of jobs in this country are created and sustained by the small and medium-sized businesses in all our constituencies.
I want to say a little about the sustainability and transformation programme for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, which I have raised in the House on a couple of occasions. I approach this in a positive spirit. We need a transformation of our care, and there are many good ideas in the programme. I wish that the leadership of the programme had engaged more with Members of Parliament; we have had one or two meetings, but sadly the suggestions that I put forward were not taken up. I believe that the leadership needs to listen much more to Members of Parliament as they take this further forward.
I have already mentioned the suggestion that one of the accident and emergency departments in Stoke and Staffordshire should close. I believe that that is absolutely wrong and will not benefit my constituents or those of the other Members of Parliament in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. I will take the matter up, as I did with the Secretary of State this morning, at every opportunity. However, I believe that some positive work is being done, and I urge those involved to engage with local Members of Parliament.
The issue that really concerns me, as it does a lot of Members, is social care. Staffordshire has been warned this week that social care homes in the private sector across the county are being closed because it is simply unaffordable for them to continue. That is partly a consequence of matters that have gone on for quite a long time, but it is partly a consequence of the introduction of the living wage. We have to bear in mind that most of those who work in the care sector are on approximately  the minimum wage. They have, rightly, received a pay rise through the living wage, but there has not been a corresponding increase in the amount paid to care homes for the provision of services.
In Staffordshire, the better care fund has not worked as it should have done this year. Fifteen million pounds was supposed to go into improving care, but it has been retained in the health service. That happened for understandable reasons, but it has caused a great shortfall for the county council. I hope that that will be remedied, to some extent, for the coming year.
We now face a crisis in the funding of social care—indeed, in the funding of health and social care—and we need a long-term solution. Many Members from all parts of the House have raised this on numerous occasions, and I have certainly done so over the last two or three years. The time has come for action. We cannot have more sticking-plaster remedies. The announcements made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government last week were very welcome, and I support them, but they are sticking plasters in the context of the sums of money required.
I want briefly to mention transport in my area. I have asked the Secretary of State for Transport to meet me to discuss the road system in Staffordshire, particularly in Stafford. I have done so for a couple of reasons. Although I welcome the improvements that will shortly be made to the M6 between junctions 13 and 15, those improvements, which will take at least two years, will inevitably have a knock-on impact on other roads in the area. We need to ensure that those improvements are made in the most efficient and effective way, with the least disruption.
A much more serious matter is the potential for disruption that may be caused by the construction of HS2 phase 2a if the HS2 Bill passes through the Houses of Parliament in the coming 12 to 15 months. The line cuts across all the major north-south transport routes in Staffordshire, which are the national north-south routes in the west of the country, and unless we think about this and alternatives are planned well in advance—how it will be planned, when road closures will happen, when work is to be done—there will be chaos for not just a couple of years, but many years. I urge the Government to think about that in advance. They may say, “Well, it hasn’t passed Parliament yet, and we can’t do anything about it until then”, but that is absolutely not the approach to take. We must think about this now, because the consequences—for not just Staffordshire and Stoke, but the entire west midlands and north-west economy—could be quite serious.
I would like to see progress on other issues that I have raised in the House during the past year. The first is the issue of hoists in hotel rooms for disabled people. It was a surprise to me when my constituent Daniel Baldawi pointed out that it is not a requirement even for major hotels and chains to have hoists in one or two rooms so that disabled people can enjoy the benefits of staying in them. I have written to many chains: some have come back to me with very positive replies, but others have not done so. I would like it to be standard in every hotel constructed in this country—indeed, hotels already in existence if they are above a certain size—to have hoists available in some rooms.
Following the tragic loss of two lives in Stafford two years ago, I have raised the issue of fireworks and the inspection of facilities containing fireworks. It is quite extraordinary that responsibility for inspecting facilities that can contain almost as much explosive, or gunpowder, as Guy Fawkes had when he wanted to blow up this place are regulated by local authorities. Local authorities may be very good at other things, but they simply do not have such expertise. I want any major facility— with upwards of a few tens or hundreds of kilos of explosives—to be regulated by the Health and Safety Executive or possibly the fire and rescue authorities, which have the experience to make judgments on such matters.
A couple of weeks ago in Westminster Hall, we had an excellent debate, which I was privileged to lead, on the ivory trade. The request was made to the Government that the United Kingdom should end the trade in ivory. I spent many years of my life in Tanzania, which has suffered a huge depletion in the number of its elephants, so this is a very personal matter for me. I know that the Government are looking at it and will hold a consultation early in the new year, but I hope that they will broaden the scope of the consultation so that all trade in ivory ceases, with the few sensible exceptions that were raised in the debate.
The final issue that I have raised in the House during the past year is that of employment and support allowance for those in the work-related activity group. A lot of colleagues on both sides of the House have concerns about this. The Government promised to come up with measures that would to some extent compensate for the loss of the additional money for those joining that group from April, but we have yet to hear about concrete measures that I believe will be satisfactory. I hope the Government will take another look at this issue.
I want very briefly to mention international development, particularly in relation to Syria. With colleagues on the International Development Committee, I was privileged to see the work that the UK Government are doing with the incredibly generous Governments and people of Lebanon and Jordan, as well of those of Turkey, Egypt and Iraq, which we were not able to visit, who are hosting millions of refugees and providing education for their children—so much so, that in Lebanon there will shortly be more Syrian refugee children than Lebanese children in its state schools. That is an example of the excellent work done through the international development budget. It has received a lot of criticism in the press in recent days and it is quite right that we should investigate all those issues, but we should never forget the tremendous work done through that budget and the support given to the marvellous people who help those who are in the most difficult of circumstances.
With that, Mr Speaker, I wish you and all the staff a very happy Christmas and a blessed new year.

Mike Wood: It is a pleasure to follow so many distinguished speakers this afternoon. In particular, I would like to add my agreement to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) about the concern that some of our  servicemen seem to be being treated more adversely than some suspected and, indeed, convicted terrorists. I hope those concerns are heard not only by the Government but by the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.
One of the joys of our role as Members of Parliament is being able to work with so many community organisations that, all year round, do such valuable work for people who are often the most vulnerable in our society. During a public service and volunteering week I held earlier in the autumn, I had the pleasure of spending some time with a range of organisations, including Age UK, the Springboard Centre, Black Country Food Bank, the dementia unit and A&E volunteers at Russells Hall hospital and the West Midlands police.
At Christmas in particular we value the role of our community organisations, but they do such work all year round. It is very difficult to pick out any one individual example above any other but it would remiss of me not to highlight Wordsley community centre in my constituency, led by the formidable Janet Blakeway, and its work to improve the centre’s accessibility. I recently launched its new stair lift, which had been made possible by Janet’s work to bring in local firms, CE Solutions and Handicare, to do the work for the local community, really transforming the services that are on offer.
The big society may have passed into political history as a buzzword, but the work that so many unheralded volunteers and community organisations do—every day of the week, every week of the year—continues regardless of passing fads in our political lexicon. Some argue that, in the selfish age in which we are supposed to live, people are no longer interested in working for a community, giving up their time or supporting good causes. That is certainly not my experience from the support for the Macmillan coffee morning or the community clean-ups we have held in Dudley South, which have been extremely well supported by the community. I hope that the deputy Leader of the House will ensure that the Government continue to look at how they can make it easier for people to give up their time and for businesses to donate resources and skills to help the communities around them.
I am particularly pleased to see a growing number of friends’ groups supporting our local parks and green spaces; at a time when local authorities are having to look at how and where they can dedicate resources, communities are saying that these things are important to them and going out and taking practical action. Most recently in Dudley South, the Friends of Cot Lane Park group was formed a month or so ago on a wet Wednesday evening, but still attracted 60 people from local estates. The group was formed in response to damage and disruption caused following an unauthorised Traveller camp at the park.
The Black Country has seen an unusual number of unauthorised Traveller camps over the summer and into the early autumn. Many have been responsible and considerate to local neighbours, but sadly some have behaved criminally. There has been disruption and criminal damage and police have reported not only robberies but violent crimes. While local authorities in my own borough of Dudley and neighbouring boroughs have pursued successive magistrates court orders, those who seek to take advantage of the system know that that means that they have at least seven days before they have to worry  about it. As a result, some of the less responsible and considerate groups have merely gone from one park or play area to the next, causing the same damage and disruption at each.
I hope that the Government will look again at practical questions such as whether authorised land for Traveller camps can be pooled so that local authorities can come together to make adequate provision across a wider area rather than in a single authority area, and whether it is time to allow local authorities to designate particular land or categories of land as sites where unauthorised camps attract criminal penalties and the realities that go with that. Of course we must always consider the genuine human rights of Traveller communities, but they must always be balanced with the legitimate rights of settled communities.
I was pleased that the then Chancellor was able to announce in the Budget in March this year the approval of the enterprise zone in my constituency. We are still waiting for the final approval of the business case, and I hope that the Deputy Leader will make inquiries about it so that the new jobs, investment and increased prosperity can come into my constituency and benefit not only those whom I represent but those in neighbouring constituencies.
Similarly, the Government have signed off the extension to the metro network between Wednesbury and Brierley Hill in my constituency. It is being underwritten by the new West Midlands combined authority, meaning that it can go ahead sooner than expected. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to extending it further to Stourbridge so that the tram link can connect back in with the main line rail network and people can enjoy some of the benefits of HS2 connectivity.
The final theme I want to raise before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess is the need to work to ensure that everyone in our communities has the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed. I have been lucky enough to visit every school in my constituency since I was elected last May. Clearly, there is much excellent teaching and school management around Dudley and the wider Black Country. It is important that I make that point because my wife has recently returned to the classroom and I know that she is listening; it could be a cold Christmas if I forget to emphasise that.
Invictus Education Trust and Windsor Academy Trust in my constituency are showing the power of schools working in partnership to drive up standards. However, across the wider Black Country, Ofsted has raised serious concerns with the four local authorities. Children in those areas start below the national average, but sadly they slip further behind across key stages 1 to 4. The performance, sadly, is less good than similar local authorities elsewhere in the country with similar levels of deprivation, so we really need to consider how we can ensure no child is left behind, whichever part of the country they live in. High performing schools and academy trusts must be able to innovate, so we can have more diversity and tailored education provision in state schools. The Invictus Trust, which has one school in my constituency, is preparing plans for a specialist secondary school that incorporates part of an almost military-style curriculum, together with core EBacc subjects, to really target those in danger of becoming disengaged with the education system. I hope the Government will give that serious consideration when the application is submitted.
As I said, we have a lot of talent in our schools. I saw that recently when I received a letter from India, Thea and Jasmine from Belle Vue primary school about the scourge of modern slavery. I have taken up this issue with Ministers, and I know the Deputy Leader of the House has done a lot of work on it in the past. The quality of the letter and the depth of understanding it demonstrated, not only of the slave trade in the early 19th century and the abolition of slavery in the United States but how it affects our communities now, was remarkable for primary school children.
You will be aware of the talent of some of my constituents, Mr Speaker, from the Christmas card I hope you received, which showcased the artistic talents of Alex Maher and Lucy Hannon of Maidensbridge primary school, William Hetheridge of Glynne primary school, Millie Millard of Ashwood Park primary school, Tia Worrell of St Mary’s Church of England primary school, Thomas Pinches of The Brier school and Reggie of Netherton Church of England primary school. I am delighted that the seven excellent entries were all able to go on the Christmas card. Merry Hill shopping centre in my constituency was so impressed with the standard of the entries that it has put them on display, so that people doing their last-minute Christmas shopping can see just how many talented artists we have in Dudley South.
I think that that is a good point on which to finish. I again wish you a very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and best wishes for the new year.

Fiona Bruce: I want to speak today about just one issue of great concern, which is how negatively the proposed new national funding formula for schools will impact on schools in my Congleton constituency if it is not revised. It is critical for the children of my constituency that it is.
Prior to the announcement last week, my constituency schools were already among the poorest-funded in the country. We therefore expected a good funding increase. After this announcement, however, headteachers tell me that theirs will be the very worst-funded schools in the country. The most poorly-funded local authority used to be £4,158 per head, but this will now be Cheshire East, at £4,122 per head. Imagine my heads’ consternation last week when they discovered that their funding will not increase, but actually drop. I use the word consternation; they used the word outrage. No wonder that within 48 hours of the announcement no fewer than five headteachers came to my constituency office to express their utter dismay.
A year ago, I took a group of headteachers to meet the former Education Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), to ensure that he heard directly their concerns on the poor funding for Cheshire East schools, and to implore him that the new formula must address them. And this was after a similar meeting in the previous Parliament, when Cheshire East local authority officers met his predecessor for the same purpose. In addition, hundreds of my constituents signed a petition for fairer funding. This issue is far from new, which is why last week’s announcement was so shocking.
My headteachers are asking how Cheshire East has become the most poorly-funded area, after they made such a convincing case to the Minister at their meeting. They thought they had been heard. I, too, find it difficult to understand.
What is particularly concerning is that these are some of highest-performing schools in the country, but there is a point at which their laudable level of achievement cannot be maintained. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State said in this place that she had been able to ensure that underfunded areas would be able to “gain up to 3%” over 2018-19 and 2019-20. My schools are facing exactly the opposite—not a rise of 3%, as the majority of my high schools face a reduction of 2.9%.
Before I relay some of the unpalatable options facing headteachers in my constituency, let me set in context last week’s announcement, because a number of other factors make the funding reductions for my schools far worse. First, the National Audit Office has said that schools face a reduction of 8% in funding in real terms by 2020, due chiefly to unfunded increases in employer costs. That makes the average savings to be found not over 2%, but over 10%. In addition, the reduction in the educational services grant will mean a further hit for academies in my constituency, which means all seven high schools. Even graver, there is still no local plan in Cheshire East, which has led to hundreds of new houses being built without additional funding for the proportionate increase in the number of children attending schools. This effect of so-called “lagging” means that schools are required to educate additional children with no additional funding.
What do headteachers tell me will be the effect of this new formula on their schools? With reference to the primary schools, Martin Casserley, headteacher at Black Firs Primary School, says they will be forced into significant reductions, including reducing support staff to help special educational needs children.
The high schools will lose £800,000 a year between them. Eaton Bank alone will face losses of £300,000 over three years. Headteacher Ed O’Neill says this would be “deeply damaging” and
“the removal of the educational services grant…and the NAO-calculated pressures mean that total savings of 12% will have to be found.”
Richard Middlebrook, head of Alsager High, who was nominated for headteacher of the year and is a national leader of education, says that the only way to survive would be to open for only four days a week, narrow the curriculum or close the sixth form—all completely implausible.
Dennis Oliver, headteacher of Holmes Chapel High, also a national leader of education, is looking at the removal of all teaching assistant posts, or the loss of all technicians, or the loss of eight non-viable sixth-form groups, or removing heating and lighting for a year or removing general resources for children, such as paper and books. John Leigh, head at Sandbach High and a long-established Ofsted inspector, tells me he risks losing his school’s “outstanding” status. He now has a £200,000 deficit as a result of lagged funding, due to new housing in Sandbach. He believes that the only feasible way to run the school would be to remove the rich programme of extracurricular activities, reduce the curriculum offer  and/or reduce the number of sixth-form classes. He is already teaching 12 hours of maths a week himself to help balance the budget.
Sarah Burns, headteacher at Sandbach Boys School, has calculated that losing the entire music, art, business studies or geography departments could achieve the reductions, but that is simply not possible for a school that is a regional leader in music and the creative arts. She is concerned about the recruitment and retention of key staff while managing a reduction of 2.9% and she calculates it will actually be 5%, taking other factors into account.
David Hermitt, chief executive officer of Congleton Multi-Academy Trust, of which I am a patron, is facing a reduction of 2.4% at Congleton High, but he tells me that in addition he has been educating over 50 children every year for free for the last three years due to the increased housing nearby, equating to over £200,000 per year of missing funding in each of the last three years. This has depleted healthy reserves. He says the school has made every cut it can to ensure that it has a balanced budget. He says that,
“we have increased average class sizes, removed some subjects from our post 16 provision, increased contact time for teachers and reduced the amount spent on books and computer equipment.”
I am proud to be patron for this well-run multi-academy trust, which is already helping to drive down back-office costs for the three schools in the trust by providing central services of finance and human resources.
Middlewich High faces even deeper reductions as a result of the change in funding for children with special educational needs and disabilities, for which it has a dedicated unit. It is a lead school for emotional health, and Members may recall that during Prime Minister’s questions recently, I drew attention to its outstanding work with the most vulnerable students and families. However, Keith Simpson, its headteacher, has said,
“as Head I have no option but to reduce staffing from this area in order to meet a minimum number of teachers to provide a curriculum.”
He added:
“This is alongside the shortfall in SEND funding for schools that maintain a truly inclusive intake. This short-term view will only store up problems for society and other services in the long term. I feel that the holistic support for children and families is being sacrificed and has no educational value in raising standards for our most vulnerable students.”
Those headteachers, whom I know well, are utterly dedicated and professional, but the concerns that I have expressed on their behalf today have been increasing for several years. They have concluded that the proposed national fairer funding formula is not fit for purpose, certainly in Cheshire East. They are asking the Government to go back to the drawing board after listening to the outcome of the current consultation, and I am asking for the concerns that I have expressed today to be included in that consultation. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will refer them to the Schools Minister, and will convey my request for an early meeting with him to which those headteachers will travel at short notice; and I hope that the Schools Minister will not just hear but act, by reviewing the impact of the new funding formula on the schools in my constituency. Without such a review, there will be grave implications for the education and life chances of the children about whom those headteachers care so deeply.
I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Members in the Chamber a happy and restful Christmas.

Cat Smith: It is an absolute pleasure to make my debut appearance as shadow Deputy Leader of the House to respond to the Christmas Adjournment debate. I believe that the House is at its best when Members raise such a huge number of issues. However, I am conscious that, apart from the Deputy Leader of the House, I am all that stands between Members and their Christmas recess, so I shall be as brief as possible in expressing my thoughts about the debate that we have enjoyed this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) opened the debate by remembering those who are less fortunate than ourselves—a very important message at Christmas—and the plight of those who are homeless. I add my thanks to Crisis, which does amazing work throughout the year but particularly at Christmas, and give credit to the last Labour Government, who did so much to tackle rough sleeping.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) raised important issues, including drug addiction and sprinklers in schools. She also spoke about jobs in her constituency: she is a tireless advocate for the people of North Tyneside.
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) raised a subject that certainly interested me, namely the plight of his constituents who travel to London by rail. He said that their trains were now 30 years old. I see his challenge, and I raise him the class 37s, which are 1960s locos. They are used by many commuters between Barrow and Preston, and they frequently break down. I should also note at this point that they are magnificent engines, because last time I raised the issue in the House, many train enthusiasts berated me somewhat on Twitter. Those engines would make a great addition to any museum. All that my Fleetwood constituents would like for Christmas, however, is a rail line to Fleetwood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke of the workers who are receiving a pay cut this Christmas. She is a tireless advocate for the workers in her constituency, and today she raised the important issue of retail workers, for whom Christmas is often bittersweet. The hours and the money that they can earn until Christmas are great, but January often comes with a reduction in hours and a pay cut.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) informed the House of a drama that was unfolding in his constituency, which he described as the end of local democracy. Many of my constituents might argue that that has already happened, given that fracking is being forced on the people of Lancashire.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) addressed the issues facing our country. He has clearly reflected on events over the past 12 months, and I concurred with his call for the rejection of post-truth politics. We should all commit ourselves to putting the “united” back into the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) talked about road transport infrastructure issues in his constituency. As we are now making our Christmas lists, I would certainly like to add the A585 to my wish list for the road to Fleetwood.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) raised the issue of hysteroscopies. This was the third occasion on which she raised it in the House, and I am sure the Deputy Leader of the House will now raise it with the Department of Health.
The hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) raised the iniquity, also raised by the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke, faced by the ex-service personnel who serve in Northern Ireland, and I am sure the Deputy Leader of the House will expand on that in his remarks.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded the House of the real reason for Christmas: the greatest gift ever given, the birth of Jesus Christ. He remembered all the persecuted Christians around the world. It is an issue he feels very strongly about, and probably sometimes finds overwhelming to deal with, so my Christmas gift to him is 1 John 4:4:
“because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.”
I hope that offers him some comfort this Christmas.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) spoke very eloquently about the shame faced by our constituents who face DWP assessments and the fantastic Ken Loach film “I, Daniel Blake”. If anyone has any time over Christmas, I am sure they will be hiring that on Amazon or elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) reflected on bereavement, which is often felt more acutely at Christmas than at any other time of the year. I am pleased he found the opportunity to mention the work of his local hospice. Indeed, if I was not at this debate, I would have been at St John’s hospice in Lancaster, where students from Beaumont College were doing a Christmas performance. Instead, I will be visiting Brian House children’s hospice in Blackpool tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) talked about Sea View Street in his constituency, which was a winner at the British high street awards last week. While his constituency may well have won the No. 1 result on the east coast, I recognise he had to specify that because he knows he could not possibly compete with the resort of Fleetwood; and indeed my constituent Craig McOmish, who owns the beach kiosk at Fleetwood, was a winner at the same awards. More seriously, the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the fishing industry, and that must be looked at seriously in the Brexit negotiations. We must support the British fishing industry.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) talked about hate speech and abuse on social media. I am sure no Member of this House is unaware of the things that go on on social media—the anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism and all the other forms of hate we see there. Last week I reported a comment on Facebook that was made about a person who is a democratically elected politician in this country. The quote was,
“shoot the bastard between the eyes and two bullets to the heart, will cure the problem”.
Within hours I heard back from Facebook that that did not breach its terms and conditions. That is absolutely a death threat, and I am continuing to pursue that with Facebook.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) raised a number of issues that he is passionate about, including cyber-bullying, the police funding formula, diabetes, Yemen and of course Leicester City. Of course 2016 was a very fine year for Leicester City, but it has also been a fine year for the mighty Barrow, who beat a league side away for the first time in 44 years. If there are any Bristol Rovers fans in the House, I can only apologise for what was clearly a very embarrassing defeat in the FA cup.
As we reflect on the year past, may I join Members who remembered our friend and colleague Jo Cox? In Jo’s maiden speech, she reminded us that we have
“more in common than that which divides us”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
and as we adjourn for the Christmas recess, we remember all those Members of the House, and indeed our constituents, who come from many different faith and cultural backgrounds but are all in the same way British. So may I take this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to wish you a happy Christmas, but to wish the Deputy Leader of the House a happy Hanukkah? In my household we will be celebrating both festivals, and anyone who has ever seen “The O.C.” will know that Chrismukkah is indeed a thing; it is a merger of both festivals.
So whatever Members of this House are celebrating as we break for the Christmas recess, may I wish them a very happy Christmas and a very peaceful new year, and extend that to the staff who work for us, the staff of the House, and all those who work here and all our constituents?

Michael Ellis: It is a pleasure to appear before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and opposite the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who gave a consummate first performance. The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), called me “suave” in the Chamber last week—the hon. Lady’s impressive skills of discernment are now evident for all to see—and I was rather disappointed at first that she was not in the Chamber today, but I welcome the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood to her place. She need only follow the example of the shadow Leader of the House to do extremely well. This debate provides an excellent opportunity to cover an unrestricted panorama of subjects without being checked by Mr Speaker for want of relevance. In the spirit of Christmas and in his absence, I want to refer to Mr Speaker and his awesome memory and attention to detail, which do this House proud.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke about those less fortunate than ourselves. I commend him on the work that he has done and is doing on the Homelessness Reduction Bill, which is making good progress. I am told that it is the longest-ever private Member’s Bill—quite an achievement—and he has clearly done tremendous work in this area. His work with faith groups across our communities is also much appreciated and extremely impressive.
The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) spoke about drug deaths being at record levels and the importance of treatment for those who have become addicted to illegal narcotics. She made powerful points, just as she did about fire safety in schools.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) spoke about the digitisation of the tax system and the Federation of Small Businesses’ estimation of the costs. She also spoke of the cost for entrepreneurs. However, it is a voluntary pilot system, and the points that she made with her customary eloquence will be listened to. She is considering the issue with the same skill that she used as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and she will no doubt keep pursuing her theme. It is a pilot scheme, as I mentioned, so her contributions will be particularly useful in the future.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) made good points about the dangers of illicit tobacco, about which we all know. Not only is it a danger to the Treasury as it leads to a loss of revenue, but more importantly it is harmful in so many ways. It is harmful to young people, because it may be distributed illicitly, allowing young people to access it, and it may contain unwholesome content that is obviously unregulated.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) is a senior Member from whom I have occasionally sought advice. He discussed the problems with the trains in his area—the same infrastructure failures no doubt arise elsewhere—but major investment in the line from Liverpool Street up to his part of the world is under way and there is a commitment for new trains in 2019-20. He made a valid point about the need for jam today as well as jam tomorrow. We would all like jam perhaps every day and, as a member of the “breakfast club” here in the House of Commons, he is someone who partakes of that. His constituents are well served by him, and he made some valid, sensible points about engineering work that sometimes overruns from the weekend into a Monday morning and the fact that freight trains use the line during rush hour. He also mentioned the Government’s planned digital signalling trials. He suggested that his constituency be part of the experiment area. That request will go to the Transport Secretary, because I will make sure that it does, and we will see whether that can be made to apply.
I was not aware that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) had made a music video, but I know now. Obviously, I was in a minority, because I understand that tens of thousands of people have already watched it. She spoke of our businesses and companies in this country, which of course are the engine and lifeblood of the economy. It is appropriate to thank them for the work they do, in employing people and contributing in their highly valuable way to the economy. Full-time work makes up nearly 70% of the growth in employment since 2010. I would like to say that John Lewis is a very good company, as I believe she recognised, and it has an excellent reputation, but I gently encourage all chief executives to find time to meet Members of Parliament when requests for such meetings are made, wherever possible. Her mention of the Ahmadiyya community was appreciated across the House, and I thank her for it. We certainly wish to show our support to the Ahmadiyya community in this country; although small, it is a great asset to our society.
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) in his place, and I had to think long and hard about what to say about his speech. He referred to a “merger most foul”, and I am sorry to hear about the local difficulties in his area. I can tell Members who were not present that it was a  subtle speech. He is a ferocious voice for his constituents, and those in his district really must think twice before crossing him. I shall say no more about that.
The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) mentioned that the European Union is a source of concern to him in terms of where we go from here. I assure him that Her Majesty’s Government are not going to be introspective—they are not, will not be and have not been introspective. The UK has always been an outward-looking country and we will continue to be. We should have faith, as he should, in the people of this country moving forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) spoke of the MetroBus scheme in his area, which sounds as though it will be a valuable alternative to private car journeys when it is up and running, but there has been consequent congestion and delays. He has clearly been working hard on behalf of his constituents, seeking meetings both here and in his constituency; he particularised the meetings that he has been having on this subject. Progress has apparently been made, so I was pleased to hear about that. I was also struck by what he said about his excellent son and the excellent advice he gave him. He is rightly proud of him and although I have never met his son, may I, too, say that I am proud of him, as someone who has joined Her Majesty’s armed forces recently?
The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made powerful arguments that had the House paying close attention. The pain of the patients she spoke of undergoing these procedures is palpable. I have already instructed that the matter be raised with the Department of Health, as this issue clearly needs a response, and I will transmit that message to the right quarters. She also mentioned research into arthritis, and I undertake to look into that.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke powerfully. May I say to him that I have briefly discussed the matter he raised—the UK soldiers being investigated—on the Front Bench with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? First, I wish to say that Her Majesty’s armed forces have made and continue to make such a contribution to peace and stability in Northern Ireland. They will be provided, where necessary, with as much taxpayer-funded legal support as necessary. Her Majesty’s Government are aware of an imbalance in the system and, as part of addressing the legacy of the past, are looking to create a more balanced and proportionate system. I thank my hon. Friend again for his powerful contribution. The way in which he speaks and the subject matter on which he speaks always command the respect and attention of the House.
The House is richer for the presence of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He has the true affection of the House. He spoke of his love for Christmas, how he enjoys spending Christmas with his grandchildren and the true meaning of Christmas. His powerful religious invocation struck me and I commend him not only for that but for all his work in this Chamber over the past year and throughout his time as a Member of Parliament. He does a great deal of powerful work on freedom of religion in general throughout the year, as well as for Christians persecuted around the world—sadly, the number of persecuted Christians is ever increasing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) spoke of Department for Work and Pensions assessments, and she is a fiercely independent voice throughout the year. I mean that as a compliment, although some Members behind me assume that it was not. She is a fiercely independent voice throughout the year and she continued to show that independence today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) clearly enjoys these pre-recess Adjournment debates, and we enjoy hearing him. The litany of points that he raised was too long for the short few hours remaining, but I was struck when he mentioned that he lost his mother this year at the age of 104. One is never old enough to lose one’s mother, and my heart goes out to him for his loss. I know that he has mentioned his mother’s birthdays as they have come along each year and I have been pleased to offer my good wishes on those occasions. I commiserate with him for his loss.
My hon. Friend spoke about the Prince’s Trust, among many other things, and about how effective one division of the trust was in his area. I commend the work of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who has many achievements and has done superb work in many areas. The Prince’s Trust is one of them. It is the 40th anniversary of the Prince’s Trust this year and it has clearly transformed many young lives, not only in the my hon. Friend’s constituency but across the country. We are very lucky to have the Prince of Wales, in my opinion. I have to get that in, Madam Deputy Speaker, as clearly the House expects it of me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) spoke affectionately of his constituency. He spoke of the pier of the year winner; I thought for one minute that he was talking about the other place, but he meant the pier that goes out into the sea. On the private sector investment coming the way of Cleethorpes, he spoke of Government support needed in that quarter. He actually requested lots of money for Cleethorpes from Her Majesty’s Government, while reiterating that he was not asking for any money. He certainly made a very attractive case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), as well as giving a charming retirement message to the chief superintendent of his area, Chief Superintendent Tunstall, who we all wish well, spoke keenly about social media abuse and the prolific amount of hate speech. The social media companies have a moral responsibility to do more.
I take this opportunity to commend the cross-party Home Affairs Committee for its report on anti-Semitism. My hon. Friend spoke about that and I know that he is on that Committee. He referred to the 2,500 deeply offensive anti-Semitic messages received in a short period of time by one Member of this House. I commend the Committee for its work. In this context, the death was announced today of Rabbi Lionel Blue. He was a wonderful voice of reason on the airwaves, in marked contrast to the virulent anti-Semitism that we are hearing about on social media in so many quarters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton spoke about a remark that the late Lady Thatcher had made. The anecdote to which he was referring, if I am correct, was about Lord Young of Graffham, of whom Lady Thatcher had apparently said, “Most people bring me their problems. He brings me solutions.”
I have not forgotten the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who spoke of the campaign against cyberbullying and the tragedy of the loss of a boy of 15, Brandon Singh Rayat. The right hon. Gentleman does so much to raise individual cases such as that in this place, and I commend him for that. The whole House offers its sympathy to the parents of Brandon Singh Rayat who, I know, have been in the Palace of Westminster today. We send our deepest commiserations for their loss. The points that the right hon. Gentleman made reiterate the damage done to young people in particular, but to people of all ages, by cyberbullying.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East has a tremendous history of good work on diabetes and on Yemen. To my certain knowledge he has focused on Yemen for years—for as long as I have been in the House. Now it is a cause that many are exercised by, rightly, but he has been a beacon of support for Yemen for many years. His support for Leicester football club is also widely known. He said something about mince pies. I will have to consult the Clerk about “Erskine May” on that. We will see whether that applies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) spoke of his affection for his constituency and the unsung heroes: the small and medium-sized enterprises. It is right that we talk about them, because so much work is put in by small business owners and managers, who often work all hours of the day and night and are the lifeblood of our economy. My hon. Friend made very valuable points about the ivory trade as well. His knowledge of African affairs is very impressive. I remember speaking to him a few weeks ago and I was bowled over by his knowledge of African affairs. When he speaks on the subject, he speaks with experience and persuasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) spoke of the valuable work done by volunteers and what we can do to encourage companies to encourage volunteers to do good work. I know of one example from my own constituency: the Nationwide building society, which I think allows each of its employees three days a year to do voluntary work in their communities. They are paid by the company for those three days, as part of the company’s social action project. If more companies can do that sort of thing, it will provide encouragement for those who wish to support their community. My hon. Friend said that he had visited every school in his constituency. Someone asked from a sedentary position whether he had passed all the exams. I have no doubt that he would if he needed to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke powerfully about school funding. I know that she will continue to fight on that subject. She is a powerful voice for her constituency, and she certainly knows how to make it heard in this place.
I take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy Christmas, particularly the staff of the House, the staff of Members of Parliament, the police and security staff who look after us, Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had a year to remember: 2016 will go down in history for myriad reasons, not least this country’s second female Prime Minister, along with many other causes of celebration.
But the House also lost a Member in the prime of her life. Jo Cox was an exemplar of public service. If I may say so, her family have shown extraordinary dignity in  their bearing. We remember that family at Christmas. We wish them and all our constituents, especially those who have suffered a bereavement, all the very best this Christmas and in the new year.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

WOOLWICH BARRACKS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Matthew Pennycook: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for selecting this topic as the last to be debated before the Christmas recess and, in so doing, providing me with an opportunity to put on the record my objection to the proposed closure of Woolwich barracks. As I might not get another chance, may I take this opportunity to wish you and the staff of the House a very merry Christmas?
I am also pleased to see the Minister in his place. He knows Woolwich station well, and I know that, for reasons he might touch on in his response, he is extremely fond of it. I would like to take this opportunity to let him know that the extremely courteous manner in which he has engaged with me on this issue over recent weeks has been appreciated.
There has been an unbroken military presence in Woolwich since 26 May 1716, when a royal warrant in the name of King George I authorised the formation of two permanent companies of royal artillery in the town. The Gunners’ regimental motto is “Ubique”, which as Members will know means “everywhere.” It could just as equally serve as a metaphor for the imprint of the military on Woolwich, which is visible in everything from its architecture to its street names. The King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery are quartered in Woolwich today, maintaining a bond between our community and our armed forces that spans three centuries. In determining to sell off Woolwich barracks by 2028, the Government intend to break that bond.
There will of course be those who argue that the disposal of the barracks has been a long time coming, that we should just accept that Woolwich’s days as a garrison town are numbered, and that the focus of this debate should therefore be on the future use of the site and how we secure the optimal outcome for those affected, not whether the decision itself is the right one. If I was convinced that the Department’s case for disposal was irrefutable, that is the debate I would have called for today, but I do not. I believe that the case for disposing of Woolwich barracks has not yet been made convincingly. I hope to probe the rationale that underpins the decision and, in so doing, convince the Minister to ask his officials to revisit it.
In objecting to the closure of Woolwich barracks, I want to make it clear to the House that I do not seek to undermine the Department’s defence estate strategy in its entirety. In his statement to the House on 7 November, the Secretary of State for Defence was correct in asserting that the current estate is too big, too diffuse, too expensive and too inefficient. He was also right to argue that, as a result, it too often fails to meet the needs of our armed forces and their families.
Just as the size and structure of our armed forces have changed to meet different threats over recent decades, so it is right that the defence estate is modernised and rationalised for reasons of affordability and efficiency. I fear that that will be extremely challenging to execute in practice, but I take no issue with the strategy itself. The issue I want to raise is not whether the strategy to  reduce the MOD’s built estate is the right one, but whether it is right that the disposal of Woolwich barracks should form part of it.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Matthew Pennycook: I believe that it is not right for three main reasons.
The first is that I question why the Department’s approach to Woolwich station has altered so dramatically over such a short period. It is worth recalling that it was only in 2009, in the defence estate strategy that preceded this recent one, that Woolwich station was designated a core site. Sadly, no detailed justification for that designation was given at the time, so it is impossible to know the detailed reasoning that underpinned it, but it seems reasonable to assume that there were solid strategic grounds for it.
As a core site, Woolwich station has been the recipient of significant investment over recent years. The Woolwich development project announced in 2009 provided for new and refurbished accommodation. A new, purpose- built, state-of-the-art equestrian training facility and accommodation centre was built to accommodate the King’s Troop following its transfer from St John’s Wood in February 2012. Even now, funding is in the pipeline to comprehensively remediate and reinstate the King’s Troop external exercise area on Woolwich common, following its use in the 2012 Olympic games.
I simply ask the Minister, what has changed about Woolwich in the past few years to so fundamentally alter the thinking of officials in his Department in relation to the future use of the site and to license the Government to write off the significant investment that has been ploughed into it over the past few years? It will strike many of my constituents as little more than an asset-stripping exercise driven by an analysis of rising land values in London rather than an exercise driven by the requirements of our defence estate.
The second reason relates to the first. I am not entirely convinced that the strategic case for selling off Woolwich barracks is as watertight as has been presented. In the correspondence we have exchanged over recent weeks, the Minister has assured me that the Department’s estate optimisation strategy was formulated with military advice provided by each of the front-line commands. I have no reason to question that assurance, but I do question whether the advice received was sufficiently wide in scope and, specifically, whether the Department, along with other Departments, has assessed the value of the site as a strategic resilience location outside zone 1.
Our security services have had incredible success in foiling terrorist attacks on the British mainland, but the threat to the UK from terrorism remains severe. Last night’s tragic events in Berlin are a timely reminder, if one were needed, that we can never be complacent. Lord Harris’s recently published independent review into London’s preparedness to respond to a major terrorist incident makes it clear that, while the involvement of the military in the event of a prolonged attack or a move to the critical threat level was once seen as a last resort, it is now integral to the planning process. In such  a scenario, the military could now be deployed under Operation Temperer, which would allow for the mobilisation of up to 5,000 troops to increase the operational capacity and capability of specialist counter-terrorism and armed police. If they were called on, those troops would require accommodation, and there is a case for looking at Woolwich—as a strategic location outside zone 1 and close to the River Thames—as a site that can provide that necessary resilience. While I do not expect the Minister to comment publicly on such a sensitive matter, I would urge him to satisfy himself on this point by looking again at whether there is strategic value in retaining Woolwich barracks as a resilience location in response to a major terrorist incident or a comparable civil emergency.
The third and final reason is that the closure of the barracks will have a detrimental impact on my constituents and on a local community whose very history and identity are intertwined with our armed forces.

Jim Shannon: I declare an interest as a former member of the Royal Artillery and having done my training at Woolwich barracks for two weeks before I joined the Territorial Army. I remember the importance of not only the camp but the museum. We have lost the museum, unfortunately. I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate because this is an important matter. Does he agree that we need to retain the barracks for the core reason of looking after the MOD, looking after the Army, and ensuring that we have it there for the future? The future is uncertain, and for that reason we need Woolwich barracks.

Matthew Pennycook: I thank the hon. and, I believe, gallant Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right. This is a unique site and there is good reason, given the risks of an uncertain future, to retain it. He will know that the collection that was formerly at the Firepower museum in Woolwich has been moved to Larkhill, where I know that, albeit in a different location, it will be cherished and valued. Its collection includes the many medals that have been awarded to the Gunners for outstanding acts of bravery.

Bob Stewart: The one thing that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that is incredibly historic about Woolwich is the fact that it was the original Royal Military Academy, and actually superior to Sandhurst in priority terms. Sandhurst has taken the Royal Military Academy badge from Woolwich, but Woolwich has that huge history. It is not just about the Gunners.

Matthew Pennycook: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Woolwich academy is commonly known as “the shop”, because the first building was a converted workshop from the Royal Arsenal. It is luxury flats now. Many of my constituents are concerned that the whole area of land on which the barracks now lies will simply be sold off for housing that many of them cannot afford.
The decision to close the barracks will have a detrimental impact on the community. That impact will be felt by the whole community, not only by the staff who work at the barracks, because Woolwich has been, and remains, a garrison town. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine Woolwich  without a military presence. I recall the day in 2012 when the King’s Troop returned to Woolwich—in the words of the then commanding officer, Major Mark Edward, the “spiritual home” of the Gunners—and locals of all ages lined the streets in their thousands to welcome the troop back. That is a sign of the deep affection in which the garrison is held—an affection that has arguably only deepened in the wake of the tragic murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby on the streets of our town in May 2013.
However, it is not just a question of sentiment and identity. The regiments that are stationed at the barracks, and those that have served there in the past, have all supported the community in very practical ways. Every year, the garrison commander makes available his barrack field for an Eid-in-the-community festival that has done more than anything else to build trust and understanding between the local Muslim community and our armed forces. In the wake of Lee Rigby’s murder, that could not have been more timely. All that work—I could give numerous other examples if I had the time—will be lost, and the loss will be acutely felt by the local community, if the barracks are closed.
I finish by simply saying this: it would be a travesty if an association—a bond—between the community in Woolwich and our armed forces that has lasted for over 300 years was ended now for anything other than the most incontrovertible of reasons. For the strategic reasons I have raised, but also, unashamedly, for reasons of history, identity and sentiment, I hope that the Minister will revisit the case for disposing of the barracks and come back in the new year with a reconsidered Government position.

Mark Lancaster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on obtaining this debate on the future of Woolwich barracks—an MOD site in his constituency. I thank him for his kind remarks about the manner in which I have attempted to engage with him and, indeed, other hon. Members over what I absolutely accept is a pretty emotional process as we move to close a number of sites across the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the fact that I should declare my interest not only as a member of the Army Reserve, but as one who is based at the barracks under discussion. It is my home barracks at the moment—it is where I go to serve. When we are faced with these decisions, they are, of course, personal and emotional, and it is not without considerable thought and effort that I have questioned this potential closure myself.
Let me say from the outset that the Department is ever mindful of the emotive nature of estate rationalisation and that the concerns and feelings of all local communities affected by our plan have been, and will continue to be, considered as part of the decision-making process. Before I address that point in detail, let me start by explaining the imperative behind our plans, which the hon. Gentleman has touched on.
Our defence estate represents almost 2% of the United Kingdom’s land mass. That is equivalent in size to Luxembourg and almost three times the size of Greater London, which is perhaps the comparison we should use in this post-Brexit world. Whatever comparison we  choose to use, it remains a fact that our estate is vast and vital to our military capability. It is where our people work, live and train; where advanced equipment is maintained; and where cutting-edge research is undertaken. It is also where major exercises are conducted and major operations launched.
It is, therefore, vast and vital, but it is also inefficient and does not meet the standards that we expect to provide to our people in the modern world. Some 40% of our assets are more than 50 years old. What is more, while the armed forces are 30% smaller than they were at the end of the last century, the estate has reduced by only 9%. That is why the 2015 strategic defence and security review committed to invest in a better built estate that will reduce in size by 30% by 2040 and that will, most crucially, better support the future needs of our armed forces.
Last month we set out how we plan to do that, when the Defence Secretary unveiled our strategy for a better defence estate—the most significant change to defence land since the second world war. The strategy has two strands. The first is to rationalise and consolidate our estate by selling off sites that are surplus to defence needs and bringing people and capabilities into new centres of specialism. Secondly, we will invest by spending £4 billion over the next decade on improving our infrastructure and modernising our accommodation. In short, our vision is to create a world-class estate for our world-class armed forces—one based on their future needs, rather than those of previous generations.
Before I continue, I should say that, given the scale of the strategy and the fact that it will be delivered over 25 years, those plans are subject to revision, but they set out our current intentions. It is a strategy that we must deliver.
Turning to the matter at hand, as part of our strategy we have confirmed the disposal of 91 sites, including Woolwich. The decisions to dispose of those sites were made as the result of a systematic and thorough review of all of our defence assets by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, working closely alongside head office and each of the front-line commands.
When it comes to the rationale behind our decision to dispose of the Woolwich site, the reasons are many, clear and, I hope, compelling. First, selling Woolwich will contribute to our overall aim of consolidating our defence estate into fewer centres of gravity and specialisation, with better support capability. It goes without saying that, given its size and location, the site itself is not suitable to become one of those larger centres. Let me explain further. When it comes to supporting military capability, a barracks in an urban location, such as Woolwich, simply cannot compete with those located in less densely populated areas. At Bulford barracks in Wiltshire, for instance, soldiers live literally on the doorstep of Salisbury plain training area, the largest military training area in the United Kingdom, equivalent in size to the Isle of Wight. They are also located alongside other units with which they live, work and train.
By comparison with Salisbury plain’s 94,000 acres, the entire Woolwich site stands at 252 acres. That includes an outdoor training area, but one that is, as hon. Members might imagine, severely constrained. For instance, if soldiers want to practise live firing or conduct an annual personal weapons test, they must be bused an  hour and a half south to Lydd ranges on the Kent coast. What is more, when it comes to working and training, units based in Woolwich do not have the day-to-day access to other units that their colleagues elsewhere enjoy. As such, they miss out on the vital exchange of ideas and tactics that gives an Army its crucial edge.

Bob Stewart: I accept everything that the Minister has said; that is logical. What I am concerned about is this: where is a unit such as the Royal Horse Artillery, which needs to be close to central London, going to go? We have had all these facilities built in Woolwich specifically for the Royal Horse Artillery, and now, a few years after producing them, we are going to throw them all away. It does not seem to make sense to me.

Mark Lancaster: I will come on to that in a moment, if I may. In many respects, the site for the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery at Woolwich is sub-optimal, because it is away from central London, where the Royal Horse Artillery historically used to be. We are looking, in another project, at how we might be able to relocate the site closer to central London, where the Royal Horse Artillery perform their ceremonial duties. Woolwich is not an ideal site for them; they moved there out of need, because of a lack of equine space elsewhere in central London. I will come back to that in a moment.
Woolwich dates back to the 18th century. The site has a proud heritage, but one that comes with a high price. The grade II-listed barracks were built 240 years ago, and they require care and attention far beyond anything that modern, purpose-built barracks would need. Of more importance is the fact that the technical accommodation on the site—meaning things such as offices, garages and stores—will require extensive investment in the not-too-distant future, and they are not set to support the armed forces going forward. Although the single living accommodation was modernised back in 2010 to ensure a good standard of living for our personnel, by the time we complete the disposal of Woolwich, we will have had 18 years of return from that investment and it will not be too long before further updating is required.
Finally, we must take into account the wider potential of the site itself. It is a key site in a popular London borough, which, with the introduction of Crossrail in 2019, will be a prime location for the construction of new homes for the capital’s workers. That is not the principal driver of the plan, however.
Taking all that into account, would it really be the best use of the defence budget and of taxpayers’ cash to retain the site? Would pumping money into facilities that are constrained by their age and location really offer us value for money? Would it be right to continue investing in a site that is sub-optimal because of the constraints on it? Would it be right to hang on to such a high-worth site when the money raised by its sale would otherwise be reinvested back into the defence estate where it is most needed?
Having examined the facts objectively and in great detail, the conclusion we have come to is: no, it is not right to hang on to the barracks. Having explained how we have come to that conclusion, let me turn to what will happen next. First, let me deal with the question of  those living and working at Woolwich barracks. There are currently 1,054 military and 97 civilian staff permanently employed at the site. I recognise that our intention to close the site is unsettling for all those people and for their families. Let me reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that we will do all we can to provide them with the necessary certainty about their future locations as soon as is practicable.
For operational reasons, I cannot go into detail on the re-provision of the Kings Troop Royal Horse Artillery any further than I already have following the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The re-provision for the other units on site, including the 1st Battalion the Royal Anglians, is yet to be determined. What I can say is that all military personnel, regular or reserve, will be relocated with their unit or re-assigned in accordance with existing career management procedures. Civilian staff will be managed in accordance with normal departmental policy and processes. Formal trade union consultation will occur well in advance of any closure, and where possible we will look at other locations where those staff can be employed. There are also a number of third-party users of the site, and we want to give them the opportunity to find alternative locations with plenty of time.
Secondly, let me deal with the future of the site. My Department has begun the process of assessing the Woolwich site for sale. The findings of that work will better inform the disposal process and ensure that the revenue situation becomes clearer. The MOD, like all Departments, follows a set process for disposing of any site. Once declared surplus to defence requirements, the site is placed on a register of surplus public sector land, which is a database managed by the Cabinet Office that provides an opportunity for other public bodies to express an interest in acquiring such sites before they are placed on the open market.
Subject to planning permission, land at Woolwich might accommodate 3,000 housing units in support of any future Government house building targets, but any decision to use the land in this way would of course need consultation with the local authority, which would seek the views of local residents as part of that process. The local authority would also have to approve planning permission for appropriate housing for the location. The MOD will continue to liaise with the local council and planning authorities to ensure the best possible future use for the site, and the local community will be kept fully informed of all developments.
That leads me to my final point—it goes to the very heart of this debate—which is the impact of this closure on the local community. As I said at the start, the Department is ever mindful of the emotive nature of estate rationalisation—all the more so when the links between the community and the armed forces are as steeped in history as they are in Woolwich. After all, heritage and tradition are things by which the armed forces set great store. This year marks the tercentenary of the Royal Regiment of Artillery—and, indeed, of my own corps, the Corps of Royal Engineers—which was raised in Woolwich in 1716. To this day, Woolwich station remains a thriving and integral part of life in the borough. I witnessed that myself when I attended Armed Forces Day there earlier this year and saw the local people’s great support for the barracks.
The units based at the station enjoy living and working there. Likewise, I know the local community holds these units in great esteem, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said. We in the Ministry of Defence are truly grateful for the steadfast support we have received from the people of Woolwich over the centuries, and I appreciate wholeheartedly their concerns and those of the hon. Gentleman, who I must say has conveyed their concerns and expressed their wishes very eloquently in the Chamber this evening. However, modern armed forces must continually evolve and move with the times, and we must ensure our people have an estate that supports them and provides the working and living environment they rightly expect.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to see our decision to sell the Woolwich site for what it is—a well calculated judgment that forms part of a wide-ranging, painstakingly considered and carefully constructed plan. It is a plan to secure the future of our armed forces and the safety and prosperity of our nation for many decades to come,  and a plan that benefits the Woolwich community by giving the borough an opportunity to use this great site in a new way. Having said that, as the hon. Gentleman has been so courteous in making the simple request that I look again at the detail of the decision, I make a commitment to do so once we return in the new year.
Winston Churchill, who can always be relied on for an apt quote, once said:
“If we open a quarrel between past and present, we shall find that we have lost the future.”
We stand at such a juncture now, so hard as it may be —and despite the commitment I have just made—it is our collective duty to look upwards, outwards and forwards and to work together for a better defence estate.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.